The Organisational Value of Predictive Storage Maintenance: A Mixed-Methods Evaluation of Avoided Disruption and Operating Costs
Abstract
Predictive storage maintenance is promoted as a means of preventing service disruption, but its organisational value depends on whether alerts lead to timely action at an acceptable operational cost. We combined maintenance records, incident data, and interviews from five organisations that had used predictive storage monitoring for at least one year. Quantitative analysis covered 1,946 maintenance alerts and 173 storage-related incidents; qualitative interviews explored alert handling, staffing, and decision rules. Alerts judged actionable were associated with earlier component replacement and a lower proportion of incidents requiring emergency intervention. Across organisations, estimated avoided downtime exceeded monitoring and preventive-replacement costs, but benefit varied widely with alert precision and service criticality. Teams with high false-positive rates reported alert fatigue and delayed investigation of lower-confidence warnings. Interviewees consistently identified clear escalation thresholds and integration with maintenance workflows as prerequisites for value. Predictive maintenance can reduce disruption and operating cost, but economic benefit is not inherent to the model itself. Value emerges when predictions are calibrated to service risk and embedded in a disciplined response process.
References
1. Azam MA, et al. Advancing explainable artificial intelligence and predictive business analytics to strengthen digital transformation, operational resilience, and productivity among U.S. small and medium-sized enterprises. European Journal of Management, Economics and Business. 2024;1(1):70-94. Available from: https://hal.science/hal-05722649/
2. Bhujel K, Haque GMM, Ansari I, Azam MA, Jahid A. Business analytics maturity and competitive advantage: evidence from data-driven enterprises. The American Journal of Management and Economics Innovations. 2026;8(3):1-23. doi:10.37547/tajmei/Volume08Issue03-01.
3. Bharadwaj A, El Sawy OA, Pavlou PA, Venkatraman N. Digital business strategy: toward a next generation of insights. MIS Q. 2013;37(2):471-482. doi:10.25300/MISQ/2013/37:2.3.
4. Bharadwaj AS. A resource-based perspective on information technology capability and firm performance: an empirical investigation. MIS Q. 2000;24(1):169-196. doi:10.2307/3250983.
5. Chen H, Chiang RHL, Storey VC. Business intelligence and analytics: from big data to big impact. MIS Q. 2012;36(4):1165-1188. doi:10.2307/41703503.
6. Gupta M, George JF. Toward the development of a big data analytics capability. Inf Manag. 2016;53(8):1049-1064. doi:10.1016/j.im.2016.07.004.
7. Mikalef P, Gupta M. Artificial intelligence capability: conceptualization, measurement calibration, and empirical study on its impact on organizational creativity and firm performance. Inf Manag. 2021;58(3):103434. doi:10.1016/j.im.2021.103434.
8. Melville N, Kraemer K, Gurbaxani V. Review: information technology and organizational performance: an integrative model of IT business value. MIS Q. 2004;28(2):283-322. doi:10.2307/25148636.
9. Vial G. Understanding digital transformation: a review and a research agenda. J Strateg Inf Syst. 2019;28(2):118-144. doi:10.1016/j.jsis.2019.01.003.
10. Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY, Podsakoff NP. Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol. 2003;88(5):879-903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.
11. Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res. 1981;18(1):39-50. doi:10.1177/002224378101800104.
12. Henseler J, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J Acad Mark Sci. 2015;43:115-135. doi:10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8.
13. Teece DJ, Pisano G, Shuen A. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strateg Manag J. 1997;18(7):509-533. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7<509::AID-SMJ882>3.0.CO;2-Z.
14. Lakens D. Sample size justification. Collabra Psychol. 2022;8(1):33267. doi:10.1525/collabra.33267.
15. Nosek BA, Ebersole CR, DeHaven AC, Mellor DT. The preregistration revolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018;115(11):2600-2606. doi:10.1073/pnas.1708274114.
16. Wilkinson MD, Dumontier M, Aalbersberg IJ, Appleton G, Axton M, Baak A, et al. The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci Data. 2016;3:160018. doi:10.1038/sdata.2016.18.
17. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77-101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
18. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. PLoS Med. 2007;4(10):e296. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040296.
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors retain copyright. Articles published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence (CC BY 4.0) may be shared and adapted for any purpose, including commercially, provided appropriate credit is given, a link to the licence is supplied, and changes are indicated. No additional legal or technological restrictions may be imposed. Third-party material is included only where its credit line permits. Licence: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. Earlier publications remain subject to their stated licence and author agreements unless the rights holder authorizes a change.
