Discover five practical signs that your building’s technical maintenance operates reactively and without proper control. See how this affects risk, long-term costs, tenant comfort and the building’s reputation – and learn what should be improved, with expert advice from For Assets on how to fix it.
Property owners and asset managers often assume that if a building “works”, its technical maintenance must be functioning correctly.
However, as For Assets’ experience shows, poorly organised maintenance rarely reveals itself through one major failure. Much more frequently, it sends a series of small, repetitive signals that are easy to dismiss precisely because the building still appears operational. Over time, these symptoms translate into rising operational costs, declining tenant satisfaction and a damaged reputation for the asset.
It’s worth stating clearly: good technical maintenance is not the absence of breakdowns. It is the way work is organised, the predictability of actions and clearly defined responsibilities. If the same situations recur month after month, it isn’t “bad luck” or “the nature of the building” – it is the sign of a systemic problem.
Below, For Assets experts with long-standing experience across different buildings present five visible, easy to spot signs – from the perspective of the owner, manager and tenant. These aren’t technical details, but symptoms that help distinguish an isolated incident from a structural dysfunction.
Here are the five signs that your technical maintenance may not be functioning as it should.
Sign 1. Chaos in Service Requests – No One Has the Full Picture
How it looks in practice:
Requests come in via email, phone, text message, Teams – and sometimes directly to a “friendly technician”.
A tenant calls asking for an update and has to remember who promised what, often without knowing the technician’s latest information.
The owner asks for a list of open tickets and SLA performance – and receives a collection of files rather than a clear, consolidated report.
Why this is a risk for the property:
Without a single system, there is no control: it’s unclear which issue is urgent, what is stuck in progress, and which fault has been reopening for months.
Owners and managers may lose the transparency they promised to tenants — making it easy for frustration and negative perceptions to build up.
In practice, costs rise significantly: the same tasks are performed repeatedly, only with longer delays.
What the standard should be:
One tool for registering and prioritising requests (ticketing) with a complete history.
Clear statuses and SLAs, automated notifications, and a dashboard for the owner and manager.
One version of the truth — without “side arrangements”.
Even the most committed and professional team cannot compensate for the absence of a proper ticketing system — For Assets has seen this repeatedly over many years. Without a shared log, there is no accountability, no trend analysis and no real risk management.
Sign 2. Constantly Reactive Work – “Firefighting” Instead of Managing
How it looks in practice:
The same issue (e.g. fan failure, condensate leaks, repeated BMS resets, recurring alarms) returns several times a year.
Repairs are only temporary: “we replaced the fuse”, “we cleared the alarm”, “we cleaned the filter” – with no root cause analysis.
The team is permanently short on time — leaving no room for preventive maintenance.
Why this is a risk:
Reactiveness increases costs: you pay for callouts, labour hours and downtime, while the underlying problem persists.
Tenant frustration grows, reducing satisfaction and triggering rent negotiations or complaints.
A build-up of “minor issues” eventually ends in a major failure at the worst possible moment (e.g. during peak cooling season).
It creates the impression that the team is simply fixing faults ad hoc, rather than managing the building’s technical condition.
What the standard should be:
RCFA (Root Cause Failure Analysis) for all recurring incidents.
A preventive and predictive maintenance plan with concrete KPIs (e.g. a reduction in incidents within a specific category).
A budget allocated to root cause work, not just quick fixes.
If something breaks “all the time”, it isn’t the nature of the system — it’s a clear sign that the building has an organisational problem waiting to be solved.
Sign 3. No Data or Knowledge About the Building – Decisions Made on Gut Feeling
How it looks in practice:
No one has access to a complete, up-to-date schedule of inspections.
It’s difficult to identify which pieces of equipment generate the highest costs or the most frequent failures.
The owner/manager lacks clarity on what is still under warranty and what is not — decisions are made “just to be safe”.
Why this is a risk:
Investment and service decisions become intuitive; it’s easy to overspend or postpone replacement for too long.
The lack of data weakens your negotiating position with service providers and during contract discussions.
Without metrics, there is no energy management, comfort management or ESG compliance — all of which impacts the building’s reputation.
What the standard should be:
An up-to-date asset register of all building systems and equipment, including service history, costs of parts and labour hours.
A warranty and contract log, with alerts for upcoming deadlines.
An owner level dashboard showing: cost per device, failure trends, and inspection compliance.
If you don’t have this data, you don’t have control — not over the risks, and not over long-term costs.
Sign 4. Unclear Division of Responsibilities
How it looks in practice:
No one is entirely sure whether a particular issue falls under FM, the service provider, the tenant or the owner — each party has different expectations and interpretations of the contracts.
Delays and conflicts arise because issues “circulate” instead of being resolved — typical symptoms include: “we’re waiting for approval”, “this is the tenant’s responsibility”.
Escalations occur after an SLA breach, not at the moment when the risk becomes visible.
Why this is a risk:
Ambiguity generates costs and conflicts — including disputes between owner and tenant.
Predictability drops: it becomes difficult to manage budgets and reputational risk when matters keep “floating around”.
Lack of clarity is often the source of claims (e.g. contractual penalties, rent reductions).
What the standard should be:
A responsibility map for typical scenarios: failures, inspections, investments, fit-outs, complaints. Here a RACI matrix should apply – Responsible, Accountable, Consulted and Informed.
A decision and escalation matrix: who approves what, in what timeframe, when and to whom issues are escalated.
Contract clauses and SLAs aligned with operational practice — with no “grey areas”.
Well-organised technical maintenance starts with clearly assigned roles, not with “because that’s how we’ve always done it”.
Sign 5. Poor Communication with Tenants
How it looks in practice:
Tenants complain about the lack of information regarding timelines, scope of works and status updates.
After works are completed, there is no summary (what was done, why, and what happens next).
Responses are unclear and inconsistent – they depend on the person and the time of day, rather than on an agreed standard.
Tenants report that they have to chase for information.
In many cases, the issue does not lie with the individual specialists themselves. The root cause is the absence of a defined system and the lack of communication standards. This is why proper coordination by an efficient FM team can be the solution.
Why this is a risk:
Communication directly impacts tenant satisfaction; regardless of the quality of the repair itself, information chaos lowers the perceived quality of the building.
It creates a sense that “no one is in control”, harming both the building’s reputation and business relationships.
Without communication standards, accountability becomes difficult, and recurring issues remain hidden.
What the standard should be:
Communication templates (notifications, status updates, closures) written in tenant friendly language.
One place to check status (portal, app), with response times included in the SLA.
Tenant satisfaction surveys conducted after key interventions — plus a quarterly report for the owner.
Recommendations & Next Steps
If several of these signals appear – and more often than seems “normal” – it means the building is facing a systemic issue. If your property is showing chaos in requests, reactivity instead of prevention, lack of data, unclear roles and weak tenant communication all at once, it is highly likely that technical maintenance is operating reactively and without real control. This is the moment to pause and restructure the way the building is managed, before the symptoms translate into real costs, terminated leases and damage to the asset’s reputation, says Maciej Kamiński, CEO of For Assets.
So, where should you begin when putting things back in order? According to For Assets specialists, the recovery path can take around 30 to 60 days, depending on the scale of the issues.
- Light Audit (2–3 weeks)
Mapping of requests, roles, SLAs, data and contracts; a quick diagnosis of critical points.
- Recovery Plan (1–2 weeks)
Clear priorities (what needs action immediately, what can be addressed quarterly), owner level KPIs and an implementation timeline.
- Implementation of the Essentials (2–6 weeks)
A single ticketing tool, dashboards, a RACI matrix, and a standardised tenant communication framework.
- Stabilisation and Reporting (ongoing)
Monthly KPI reviews and root cause actions for recurring issues.
For Assets specialists, when taking on a property, help introduce these elements step by step, focusing on cost predictability, risk mitigation and tenant relationships.
FAQ
Does “no complaints” mean everything is fine?
Not necessarily. A lack of complaints often reflects low tenant expectations or the absence of a clear feedback channel. The real indicators are incident data, SLA performance and trends.
Will implementing a ticketing system drown the team in paperwork?
A well configured ticketing tool simplifies work: it reduces long email threads, automates status updates and makes prioritising easier. The result is less chaos and shorter reaction times.
How quickly can you see results after shifting from reactive to preventive work?
Initial improvements — such as a drop in recurring incidents and fewer escalations — often appear within 4–8 weeks. The full impact on costs and reputation becomes visible over a quarterly or semi-annual horizon.
The Bigger Picture: Reputation as a Key Asset
For Assets experts emphasise that the building’s reputation is now one of the owner’s most valuable assets. Even if individual faults are minor, their repeatability creates a sense of chaos and lack of control among tenants. This directly undermines trust in the management team and affects the property’s standing on the market. Good technical maintenance is not only about well-functioning systems — it is about predictability, transparency and a consistent standard of information. These elements either build or erode the reputation of the building.
If any of these signals sound familiar…
…it is worth looking at your asset through the owner’s perspective.
Ask yourself:
Do we have one source of truth?
Are decisions based on data?
Do tenants feel we are in control?
If not, For Assets specialists can support you with a quick organisational review and a practical improvement plan — no revolution required, just a measurable impact on costs, risk and tenant satisfaction.
Maciej Kamiński
CEO, For Assets