Predictive vs preventive maintenance: the ultimate guide.
Although both aim to optimize the reliability and lifespan of assets, predictive and preventive maintenance differ in how they organize and manage maintenance activities.
For a long time, and perhaps even today, the value of an industrial machine has been measured at the point of sale. Precision, reliability, and quality are fundamental parameters when talking about factories, but they only tell part of the story.
In many cases, the delivery of a machine often marks the beginning of an “information-operational gap” between the manufacturer (machine builder) and the end user. While the former loses visibility on the actual performance of its product, the latter finds themselves managing increasingly complex assets without continuous support or adequate technical knowledge.
Bridging this gap is not just a technological challenge, but one of integration and collaboration. A new way of collaborating is needed, and industrial asset sharing becomes the key model for turning machine-generated information into economic and operational value.
Today, this is possible thanks to common, standardized, and easily accessible tools that allow both parties to visualize and analyze machine operations and performance in real time.
For machine builders, delivering the machine also marks the beginning of a separation. Once it leaves the factory and is installed at the customer’s site, visibility into its usage, condition, and performance over time drops dramatically. Machines become part of the customer’s daily operations, yet remain outside the knowledge perimeter of those who designed them.
This is compounded by an economic limitation: value remains largely concentrated in the initial sale, services struggle to become a stable source of revenue, and machine margins continue to shrink, especially in an increasingly competitive market where differentiation levers are becoming ever thinner.
On the other side, end users find themselves managing increasingly complex plants, often in environments marked by high employee turnover and process knowledge that is difficult to consolidate. Information becomes fragmented across people, shifts, departments, and systems; data exists, but it does not turn into operational knowledge, and connecting machines often requires high investments and inflexible solutions.
The result is a factory that appears connected, but is operationally misaligned.
Over the past decade, the industry has made significant investments in digitalization, also driven by public incentives and support policies. However, the real issue is not the technology itself, but the lack of integration between those who own operational data and those who hold process expertise and know-how.
This separation creates an operational and cultural gap that is difficult to bridge. Those who use the machine have access to operational data, but not always to the deep understanding of the asset needed to fully interpret it; those who build the machine have the technical expertise, but often lack visibility into how it actually performs in the customer’s day-to-day operations.
Believing that digitalization alone can solve this problem is a conceptual mistake. Without a model that brings together data and know-how, information remains isolated and the real value generated by machines remains untapped.
What happens when machine builders and end users start looking in the same direction?
When both players stop operating in silos and begin to communicate with each other, something changes. Machines are no longer isolated objects and become part of the equation, turning into true drivers of value, while data and knowledge become a shared resource capable of generating measurable benefits for both sides.
Value is no longer measured solely in terms of sales or margins on a single machine, but in the shared capital that emerges from joint work: problems are solved faster, processes are optimized, decisions are more informed, and relationships between supplier and customer grow stronger. In other words, ownership gives way to collaboration, and from this collaboration comes real competitive advantage.
If value is created through collaboration, the next question is how to make this approach tangible. This is where industrial asset sharing comes into play.
When we talk about “sharing” an asset, familiar models like Airbnb or Uber often come to mind. Platforms that have transformed the way resources are perceived and used, showing that value no longer lies in ownership, but in the ability to share and make use of an asset. In the same way, industrial machines are no longer just assets to be purchased and depreciated, but become strategic assets in their own right.
In an industrial context, asset sharing is a model that enables the connection between those who build machines and those who use them, transforming data, insights, and know-how into shared operational information.
For machine builders, this means:
For customer companies, it means:
In this way, asset sharing is not just a concept, but a practical approach that makes value measurable and continuous, creating a virtuous cycle where every piece of information generates tangible benefits for all parties involved.
40Factory was born from this very need: to provide a technological infrastructure that goes beyond simply equipping companies with digital platforms to connect machines, and instead bridges the gap between those who design machines and those who use them.
To achieve this, we have built a simple process:
From this point on, the MAT platform becomes common ground. Machine builders and end users have access to the same real-time data, eliminating information silos and aligning operational objectives.
What does this mean for the business?
With 40Factory, the factory is no longer a collection of isolated systems, but becomes a collaborative ecosystem where every data point generates tangible impact, for both those who build and those who produce.