Howard Yu, Professor of Management and Innovation at IMD Business School, shares a simple but powerful idea: future-ready organizations are built by leaders who learn to perform today while transforming for tomorrow. Not later. Not after the next shutdown. Now.

For industrial and maintenance leaders, this tension is familiar. Every hour spent experimenting can feel like an hour taken away from uptime. Yet organizations that focus only on optimizing today quietly fall behind. The leaders who endure are those who do both.

Yu calls this discipline perform and transform. It means protecting today’s operations while deliberately building new capabilities alongside them. In maintenance, this might be a small pilot in predictive maintenance, a limited AI use case for work planning, or training one technician in data analysis while the rest of the team keeps production moving.

Another core lesson is ownership. Transformation is not a big program rolled out from above. It is a series of experiments. Some will work. Some won’t. Future-ready leaders make failure survivable and learning visible. They are also willing to stop what is merely “pretty good” to scale what is truly valuable. In maintenance, this can mean retiring legacy routines that feel safe but add little value and doubling down on practices that genuinely improve reliability or safety.

Yu also emphasizes ecosystem thinking. Strong organizations don’t try to do everything alone. They make themselves easy to work with. For maintenance leaders, this means reducing friction between operations, IT, OEMs, contractors, and partners. Learning speeds up when collaboration is simple.

Perhaps the most human insight is Yu’s reminder to “find your Tony”, the curious individual who steps forward without being asked. Often young, often unnoticed, and often closest to real work. Many maintenance breakthroughs don’t come from consultants, but from technicians who see problems every day and dare to suggest a better way.

Future readiness is not about giant leaps. It is about being one inch ahead. One process improved. One skill learned. One experiment launched. Over time, those inches add up.

Leadership in industry and maintenance has always been about responsibility. Today, it is also about readiness.

Howard Yu

Howard Yu is the LEGO® Professor of Management and Innovation at IMD Business School and Director of IMD’s Center for Future Readiness. His research focuses on why some organizations adapt and grow while others fall behind. Working closely with industrial and technology-driven companies worldwide, Yu helps leaders turn strategy into everyday habits that keep organizations just one inch ahead.

Key takeaways for industrial & maintenance leaders

1. Perform and transform simultaneously. Protect today’s performance while intentionally building tomorrow’s capabilities.

2. Make learning faster than change. Encourage experimentation, stop low-value routines, and scale what works.

3. Progress beats perfection. One small step forward, taken consistently, builds future readiness.

Text: Mia Heiskanen   Photos: Pasi Salminen   Visual: Nordic Business Forum/Linda Saukko-Rantala

In 2022, the Belgian publicly-owned transmission system operator Elia Group announced plans to build what it called “the world’s first artificial energy island”, connecting up to several gigawatts of offshore wind capacity.

“By quadrupling our offshore wind capacity by 2040, we will strengthen our energy independence, reduce our energy bills and cut carbon emissions,” said Belgian Energy Minister Tinne Van der Straeten, presenting the Elia plan.

Construction of the island started in 2023.

A New Model for Large-Scale Offshore Grid Integration: Located approximately 45 kilometres off the Belgian coast in the North Sea, the Princess Elisabeth Energy Island represents a pioneering approach to integrating offshore energy at scale.

The main construction work will be carried out by the TM Edison consortium, a joint venture between the Belgian marine engineering companies DEME Group and Jan De Nul Group. The consortium will be responsible for dredging, seabed preparation and the construction and installation of the concrete revetments on the island.

Other partners include engineering companies such as Iv, HSM Offshore Energy and Smulders, which will support the design and integration of the island’s high-voltage infrastructure, and materials supplier Holcim Belgium.

The structure is engineered to withstand the demanding environmental conditions of the North Sea, including high waves, storm surges and long-term marine exposure.

Princess Elisabeth Energy Island reached its first major milestone in January 2026, when all 23 massive concrete caissons were completed and made ready for installation.

“The caissons are now at the Scaldia terminal for final finishing works,” said DEME in its press release.

This spring, offshore installation of the remaining caissons resumes in the North Sea, alongside continued works to prepare the island’s interior.

At the heart of the project is a civil engineering solution based on 23 prefabricated concrete caissons. Each caisson measures roughly 58 metres in length, 28 metres in width and up to 30 metres in height, with individual weights reaching approximately 22,000 tonnes.

Once positioned, the caissons are submerged in a prepared seabed footprint and installed in a circular configuration to form the island’s outer perimeter. The caissons are filled with water to sink them in a stable and controlled manner and will form the island’s outer perimeter.

The next phase involves reinforcing the caissons with rubble to protect against summer storms, filling them with sand and preparing for the placement of the next unit.

Nature-Inclusive Engineering at Sea: The project incorporates nature-inclusive design principles as an integral part of its engineering concept.

The caisson walls and surrounding rock structures are specifically designed to enhance marine biodiversity, creating habitats for shellfish and other marine organisms.

Elia Group has emphasised that these measures aim to compensate for the ecological impact of constructing an artificial island in the North Sea.

The upper sections of the structure are planned to serve as nesting sites for seabirds, while the submerged components are intended to support oyster reefs and other underwater ecosystems.

Construction of the high-voltage alternating current (HVAC) systems began in June 2025 at HSM Offshore Energy’s shipyard in Schiedam the Netherlands, marking a key step forward in multi-yard project execution.

The contract for the HVAC stations was awarded by HSI Pemac, a Belgian-Dutch consortium comprising HSM Offshore Energy, Smulders and IV.

Detailed 3D modelling and other design work is carried out at IV’s offices in Papendrecht, while prefabrication takes place at Smulders’ Belgian facilities and HSM’s Schiedam plant.

Final assembly takes place in Schiedam and Vlissingen.

In addition to the electrical infrastructure, the island will include a small harbour and a helipad to support maintenance operations. These facilities will allow crew transfer vessels and helicopters to access the offshore hub efficiently, minimising downtime and operational risks.

Princess Elisabeth Energy Island was originally conceived as a hybrid offshore grid platform combining both high-voltage alternating current (HVAC) and high-voltage direct current (HVDC) systems, before the project evolved toward a stronger AC focus.

The HVAC infrastructure would collect electricity from multiple wind farms via subsea export cables, while HVDC converter stations would enable efficient long-distance transmission and the development of new international interconnectors — including a planned second link between Belgium and the United Kingdom.

However, in the summer of 2025, the Belgian government announced that the scope of the project would be significantly revised due to rapidly rising costs.

Cost Escalation Forces Project Revision: Initially estimated at just over €2 billion in 2021, total project costs had risen to approximately €7 billion, driven largely by escalating prices for high-voltage direct current (HVDC) systems and installation works.

As a result, the federal government cancelled the second phase — which would have included a third wind farm connection and a direct HVDC link to the UK. The cut is expected to bring savings of around €3 billion.

While construction of the island itself and its AC infrastructure continues, discussions with UK partners regarding a future second interconnector remain ongoing.

Strong EU Backing for the Project: The Princess Elisabeth Energy Island has secured significant European financial support as part of the EU’s wider green transition agenda. In 2024, the European Investment Bank (EIB) signed a €650 million Green Credit agreement with Elia Group to help finance construction of the offshore hub and its associated grid infrastructure.

The project has also received €100 million from the NextGenerationEU recovery fund and benefits from backing under the EU’s REPowerEU initiative, which aims to strengthen Europe’s energy resilience and accelerate the shift away from fossil fuels.

Despite the scope reduction, the Princess Elisabeth Energy Island remains a landmark project in offshore grid development, showcasing innovation under pressure.

With construction progressing in phases, the Princess Elisabeth Energy Island is widely viewed as a prototype for future offshore energy hubs in Europe.

As offshore wind capacity continues to expand, the island model offers a scalable solution for grid consolidation, cross-border energy exchange and system resilience in increasingly complex renewable energy networks.

The project now serves as both a technological prototype and a case study in the financial and supply-chain pressures facing large-scale energy infrastructure. As construction progresses, its success will likely influence how future offshore hubs are engineered, financed and phased across Europe.

Operations Scheduled to Begin in the 2030s: The island itself is due to be completed by 2027, after which construction of the wind turbines can begin, with the island expected to be operational by the 2030s.

Once completed, the modules, including the substations and the power plant unit, will support the supply of at least 2.1 GW of wind power to the continent.

In its first phase of operation, it will collect electricity from two new wind farms located in Belgium’s second offshore wind zone and will enable this energy to be connected to the country’s onshore grid.

Text: Vaula Aunola

Photos: Elia, HSM Offshore Energy

As digitalisation accelerates and geopolitical tensions rise, maintenance teams responsible for physical and cyber-physical systems face a rapidly evolving threat landscape. The World Economic Forum’s Global Cybersecurity Outlook 2026 highlights this shift.

Drawing on insights from more than 100 executives and security leaders, the report shows how technological change, political fragmentation and economic disparities are creating a more volatile digital environment. Cybersecurity has moved from a back-office function to a core determinant of business continuity, national security and public trust. Decisions about AI, supply chains and international cooperation now carry direct cybersecurity implications.

Geopolitics is an increasingly important factor. Fragmentation between states, concerns over technological sovereignty and declining cross-border trust complicate coordinated cyber defence. Cyber operations now intersect more often with political tensions and trade disputes, making unified responses harder even as attacks spread rapidly across jurisdictions.

The report also warns of a widening “cyber resilience gap.” Well-resourced organisations are pulling ahead, while smaller actors face rising exposure to cybercrime, supply-chain disruptions and systemic failures. This imbalance is economic as much as technical.

For industrial maintenance, the consequences are immediate. Systems once isolated are now connected and optimised through digital tools. While this improves efficiency and predictive maintenance, it also exposes critical assets to cyber threats that can disrupt operations, damage equipment and cascade across supply chains.

AI: A Double-Edged Sword for Maintenance Operations. AI is both a catalyst for innovation and a growing source of risk. According to the report, 94% of respondents see AI as the most significant force shaping cybersecurity in 2026.

While AI strengthens defences through automated threat detection, rapid adoption has outpaced many organisations’ ability to govern it securely.

In 2025, 87% of leaders identified AI-related vulnerabilities as the fastest-growing cyber risk. For maintenance teams relying on AI-driven predictive tools, this creates both opportunity and caution. AI can detect early signs of mechanical failure, but poorly secured models may leak operational data or introduce faults. Securing AI—from model training to real-time inference—must become part of the maintenance lifecycle.

Supply Chain Security: From Third-Party Risk to Operational Continuity. The report highlights systemic vulnerabilities in complex supply networks. In 2025, 65% of large companies cited supply-chain and third-party risks as their biggest barrier to cyber resilience.

For maintenance teams dependent on equipment manufacturers, software vendors and cloud systems, any weak link—outdated firmware, insecure access or unmanaged endpoints—can become an entry point for attack.

This calls for broader risk assessments, including vendor audits, dependency mapping and continuous monitoring of third-party security posture to avoid unplanned downtime.

Geopolitical Fragmentation and Its Ripple Effects. Geopolitical tensions increasingly shape cyber-risk strategies, with 64% of organisations now factoring geopolitically motivated attacks—such as disruptions to critical infrastructure—into their planning. For maintenance operations in energy, transportation and manufacturing, this means integrating geopolitical awareness into risk management and collaborating with national initiatives to share threat intelligence.

From Reactive Repairs to Proactive Resilience. The Global Cybersecurity Outlook 2026 reframes cybersecurity as a resilience issue spanning technology, operations and human expertise. For maintenance professionals, this means shifting from isolated technical fixes to an integrated, forward-looking approach.

Key priorities include embedding cybersecurity into maintenance planning, securing AI tools throughout their lifecycle, improving supply-chain visibility and investing in cross-disciplinary skills that bridge OT, IT and cybersecurity.

A Strategic Imperative for the Digital Age. Cybersecurity is now central to keeping industrial systems safe and reliable. As AI adoption grows and cyber threats become more advanced, maintenance teams must adapt by managing risks early, collaborating across functions and embedding security into everyday practices. In an era where digital failures can halt operations as quickly as physical breakdowns, cybersecurity has become an essential component of maintenance strategy and long-term competitiveness.

Source:

World Economic Forum (2026). Global Cybersecurity Outlook 2026.

Text: Nina Garlo-Melkas    Illustration: SHUTTERSTOCK

Key indicators for identifying maintenance debt: in industrial environments, maintenance debt is most often detected by observing trends in key performance indicators rather than single point observations. A single indicator rarely reveals emerging or existing maintenance debt. Instead, individual indicators primarily act as triggers for more detailed investigations.

Debt arising during the procurement phase: Debt incurred in connection with investments can be assessed by comparing alternative options in terms of lifecycle returns and lifecycle costs. Options with low lifecycle returns and high lifecycle costs may indicate investment debt originated in the procurement phase.

Indirect, indicative conclusions can also be drawn from the financial evaluation methods applied in equipment acquisitions. If the required payback period is short (for example one year) and the evaluation method emphasises purchase price or internal rate of return (IRR), there is a risk that investment debt will be created.

Debt arising during the operating phase of physical assets: a comprehensive indicator that supports the identification of maintenance debt can be formed as a composite variable consisting, for example, of:

• unavailability costs

• maintenance costs

• capital costs of replacement investments

• energy costs

• equipment integrity and quality related costs

• other equipment-related lifecycle costs.

If the trend of this composite indicator is increasing, maintenance debt may be suspected. However, whether the increase indicates maintenance debt requires additional analysis. For example, over-maintenance may raise both maintenance costs and unavailability costs. Premature replacement investments may also increase total costs.

A decline in performance rate of the item may likewise indicate emerging maintenance or upkeep debt. Naturally, performance can deteriorate for many other reasons besides maintenance, such as design errors, installation errors, operational mistakes, or changes in usage patterns.

Evaluation of maintenance debt using maintenance indicators:

if an organisation knows the optimal maintenance effort in relation to production volume or to the replacement value of assets, defining maintenance debt becomes considerably easier.

a) MOTBF (Mean Operating Time Between Failures) and/or unavailability costs

If requirements, strategies, operating profile, and operating conditions remain unchanged, a shortening of the failure intervallin sijasta MOTBF together with an increase in unavailability costs may indicate the emergence of maintenance debt.

b) Ratio of corrective to preventive maintenance

If the share of corrective maintenance increases while the share of preventive maintenance decreases in total maintenance, this may be a sign of maintenance debt developing. If preventive maintenance is deliberately reduced or reduced for other reasons (for example summer holidays, retirements, hurry, cost savings, or lack of resources), this may later manifest itself as maintenance debt.

c) Maintenance costs relative to replacement value of the equipment

This is one of the indicators for measuring maintenance efficiency and aging of the assets that also considers the size of the installed assets. It may indicate maintenance debt, but it must be reviewed together with the trend of unavailability costs. A decreasing value of the indicator can either reflect improved efficiency or, under otherwise similar conditions, an increased risk of maintenance debt.

d) Maintenance costs related to output

A reduction in maintenance cost per produced output generally indicates improved efficiency, assuming that production volumes, product mix, and prices remain roughly the same.

However, the interpretation should be complemented by examining repair times. Growth in total repair time (RT) and in mean repair time (MRT) often accompanies a shortening of MOTBF. An increase in the average repair time suggests that repair actions are becoming more demanding.

e) Cause–effect chains between indicators

Example: During the review period, the delivery reliability of a production line declined. At the same time, the total time allocated to planned condition-based maintenance decreased. This resulted from changes in the interval of condition monitoring measurements (i.e., measurements were performed less frequently). Consequently, unplanned condition-based shutdowns and failures increased, which further weakened delivery reliability. The outcome was maintenance debt.

It is difficult to develop a single, unambiguous indicator for maintenance debt. Using several indicators simultaneously provides a more reliable basis for conclusions.

Measurement methods and benchmarking:

Trend analysis and indicator combinations: in most cases, maintenance debt is identified by examining trends rather than individual values. One indicator alone is seldom sufficient. Therefore, organisations should define combinations of indicators whose joint information allows maintenance debt to be assessed. In addition, the procedures and rules for interpretation must be defined in advance.

Risk-based indicator: a risk-based indicator is founded on the organisation’s own risk assessment, which may rely on expert judgement. The assessment identifies events and assets that can cause unavailability, additional costs, or safety challenges. It also evaluates the consequences and severity of maintenance debt as well as the probability of its occurrence in different assets.

Benchmarking procedure: Benchmarking is an effective but often difficult method for assessing maintenance debt. Finding a sufficiently similar production unit is challenging, and even when one is found, competitive considerations frequently prevent meaningful comparisons.

Conclusions and practical considerations: Maintenance debt most often becomes visible through changes in key figures over time. Individual metrics mainly function as alerts that prompt deeper analysis.

Anticipating maintenance debt is inherently difficult because the future involves uncertainty. Nevertheless, defining suitable indicators, monitoring them systematically, and understanding their causal relationships supports proactive management.
When evaluating maintenance debt, it is essential to recognise the long-term effects of procurement choices, operational practices, and resource allocation on the development of physical assets.

Text: Janne Hakala, Juha Huitula, Mika Kari, Kari Komonen, Timo Lehtinen
Translation: Mia Heiskanen