Isn’t this just a normal consequence of scale? If you had to maintain 500 cars, you’d probably be more systematic. With just one car, the chances of it breaking down on any given day are pretty low.
My own strategy is that I take my car to get inspected every time the maintenance light comes on, which is about 5,000 miles. The rest of the time, I don’t worry about it.
Well yes, it a consequence of scale, but my purpose here is to question the incentives behind maintaining 500 cars vs. one car. Taking your car maintenance example, I would expect a vehicle fleet administrator to apply the same schedule he uses for the fleet to his daily driver. If he applied the strategy that you describe (which is essentially reactive maintenance) to the fleet, there is a higher probability of one car failing than if he only applied it to his car. Using the same checklist he uses for the fleet for his personal car (let’s assume preventative maintenance) would result in increased reliability.
Isn’t this just a normal consequence of scale? If you had to maintain 500 cars, you’d probably be more systematic. With just one car, the chances of it breaking down on any given day are pretty low.
My own strategy is that I take my car to get inspected every time the maintenance light comes on, which is about 5,000 miles. The rest of the time, I don’t worry about it.
Well yes, it a consequence of scale, but my purpose here is to question the incentives behind maintaining 500 cars vs. one car. Taking your car maintenance example, I would expect a vehicle fleet administrator to apply the same schedule he uses for the fleet to his daily driver. If he applied the strategy that you describe (which is essentially reactive maintenance) to the fleet, there is a higher probability of one car failing than if he only applied it to his car. Using the same checklist he uses for the fleet for his personal car (let’s assume preventative maintenance) would result in increased reliability.