Part 1: Why Most Obsolescence Studies Fall Short

When it comes to obsolescence, most reports do the same thing: list outdated components, flag unsupported systems, and if you are lucky, highlight what’s at risk of failure. Then they stop. 

That’s not planning. It’s just documenting the inevitable.

The problem is, these reports leave teams with a pile of red flags and no direction. They tell you what’s wrong, but not: 

• What to do about it. 

• Which items to prioritize. 

• What the upgrades will cost. 

• How and when to take action. 

There’s no prioritization, no cost context, and no guidance on how or when to act. For teams on the ground, this often results in frustration. You know there are vulnerabilities in your system, but you don’t have the plan, or the budget to address them. For leadership, it’s difficult to allocate resources without a clear, strategic view of the risks and what they mean in real-world terms. 

In other words, traditional obsolescence studies often highlight the problem, but leave you guessing about the solution. 

That’s not planning. That’s just documentation. 

Effective obsolescence planning should help you move forward. It should give you clarity, not just caution. And it should translate risk into action, whether that means phased replacements, budgeting for future upgrades, or planning for controlled downtime. 

Maintenance teams know what needs attention, but without a clear strategy, they can’t move forward. Leadership can’t make confident investment decisions without understanding the risks, budget guidance or realistic timelines. 

Ultimately, you’re left with risk, but no resolution. And while that may technically check a box, it doesn’t help you avoid downtime, plan upgrades, or build a business case for action. 

In the next post, we’ll look at a different approach—one that moves beyond the list and delivers a practical, phased plan you can actually use. 

Written by: Bryan Little