IT vs Operations: CMMS Ownership Guide

The question of CMMS ownership has derailed more implementations than technical failures ever have. Research shows that over 70% of CMMS projects fail to launch successfully, with poor implementation planning cited as the biggest challenge by more than 50% of organizations. The root cause is rarely the technology itself. Instead, territorial battles between facilities directors and IT managers delay go-live dates by months, create duplicate workflows, and frustrate end users who simply want their work orders processed efficiently.

This ownership ambiguity reflects a fundamental tension: CMMS systems sit at the intersection of enterprise software requiring IT governance and operational tools managing maintenance processes that only facilities teams truly understand. When enterprise IT is typically managed by the CIO while operational technology falls under the COO, most companies lack joint governance covering both domains.

The stakes are substantial. The global CMMS market reached $1.29 billion in 2024 and is projected to grow to $2.41 billion by 2030, with 68% of US enterprises increasing CMMS budgets in 2025 to boost asset utilization and operational transparency. Organizations making the wrong governance choices waste significant investments and miss the operational improvements their competitors are capturing.

The solution is not choosing between IT and operations ownership. Successful implementations require shared governance models that draw on each department’s expertise while preventing the coordination failures that plague siloed structures. This article provides practical frameworks for establishing cross-functional CMMS governance, from RACI models defining specific responsibilities to steering committee structures ensuring strategic alignment.

The Case Against Single-Department Ownership

Before exploring governance solutions, examining why traditional ownership models fail helps organizations avoid repeating costly mistakes. The patterns are remarkably consistent across industries and organization sizes.

When IT Owns the CMMS Exclusively

When CMMS ownership resides entirely within IT departments, several predictable problems emerge. The first is workflow misalignment. IT teams design system configurations based on technical elegance rather than operational practicality. I have witnessed IT-configured work order workflows with seventeen approval stages because the system technically supported that complexity, when maintenance supervisors needed three-stage processes to meet response time targets.

Data structure issues compound workflow problems. IT administrators create asset hierarchies reflecting network topology or ERP integration requirements rather than how maintenance technicians actually locate and service equipment. A manufacturing facility once implemented an asset numbering system perfectly aligned with their financial system but completely unusable for technicians needing location-based identification during emergency repairs.

User adoption suffers when IT controls training and support. Technical support teams answer questions about software functionality but cannot explain why particular workflows exist or how to handle exceptions operational staff encounter daily. This creates support gaps where users receive technically correct answers that fail to solve operational problems.

Integration priorities skew toward IT infrastructure rather than maintenance needs. IT-led implementations prioritize connections to Active Directory and backup systems while delaying integrations with IoT sensors or mobile inspection tools that operations teams require for daily work. This misalignment becomes particularly problematic as 75% of large industrial organizations implement IT-OT integration strategies to accelerate product cycles and strengthen resilience.

When Operations Owns the CMMS Exclusively

Operations-only ownership creates different but equally problematic issues. Technical debt accumulates when maintenance managers make configuration changes without understanding system architecture implications. I have encountered facilities where operations staff created forty-seven custom fields on work orders because adding fields was easy, resulting in database performance issues requiring expensive remediation.

Security vulnerabilities emerge when operations teams lack cybersecurity expertise. Security represents the greatest challenge to IT-OT convergence, yet maintenance-led CMMS deployments sometimes grant excessive permissions because supervisors prioritize ease of access over security protocols, creating audit failures and compliance risks.

Integration failures occur when operations teams attempt to connect CMMS to other enterprise systems without IT involvement. A healthcare facility spent six months building manual data export processes between their CMMS and facility management system because the operations director did not realize IT could establish automated integrations. This inefficiency directly undermines the operational transparency that 68% of enterprises are investing in CMMS to achieve.

Vendor management suffers without IT procurement expertise. Operations teams sometimes sign CMMS contracts with inadequate service level agreements, unclear data ownership terms, or licensing structures that become cost-prohibitive as user counts grow. Given that 92% of G2000 companies outsource IT needs, the vendor management expertise IT departments develop through these relationships becomes critical for CMMS procurement success.

System scalability issues arise when operations teams focus on immediate needs rather than long-term architecture. A university that started with 200 CMMS users found their operations-configured system could not support 2,000 users when they expanded deployment campus-wide, requiring costly migration.

The Shared Governance Imperative: Why IT-OT Convergence Demands Collaboration

The need for shared CMMS governance reflects broader trends transforming how organizations manage technology. IT-OT convergence is expanding beyond manufacturing, with healthcare and retail organizations streamlining workflows by aligning previously siloed systems. Facilities management faces identical convergence challenges.

McKinsey research on IT-OT convergence identifies substantial benefits for organizations implementing effective integration strategies: accelerating in-flight use cases, democratizing access to data across the value chain, launching cloud-native capabilities, and improving frontline decision-making using data from both IT and OT systems. For organizations ahead in this transition, incremental value can exceed $100 million.

However, capturing this value requires governance models addressing the organizational reality that IT and OT typically operate under different executives with different priorities. Facilities teams that invest in accurate data, integrated systems, and strong cross-functional partnerships position themselves best to manage costs, improve reliability, and enhance workplace experiences.

The statistics on collaboration failures underscore governance importance. Research shows that 86% of respondents blame lack of collaboration or ineffective communication for workplace failures, while Deloitte identifies team alignment and unsupportive culture as main roadblocks to cross-functional collaboration. CMMS governance must explicitly address these collaboration challenges rather than assuming goodwill between departments will suffice.

The Shared Governance Model: Structure and Responsibilities

Effective CMMS governance requires frameworks that assign clear responsibilities to both IT and operations while creating coordination mechanisms preventing departmental silos. The shared governance model accomplishes this through three components: a RACI matrix defining specific responsibilities, a dual-administrator structure balancing technical and operational expertise, and a steering committee providing strategic oversight.

Building a Comprehensive CMMS RACI Matrix

RACI models assign four responsibility types for each CMMS activity: Responsible (does the work), Accountable (owns the outcome), Consulted (provides input), and Informed (receives updates). Well-designed CMMS RACI matrices prevent ownership conflicts by explicitly defining who handles each aspect of system management.

System Infrastructure and Technical Architecture

IT should be Responsible and Accountable for server infrastructure, database management, backup procedures, disaster recovery, and system performance monitoring. Operations should be Consulted on uptime requirements and performance standards affecting maintenance workflows. Executive leadership should be Informed of major infrastructure changes or outages affecting operations.

This division recognizes IT’s expertise in enterprise architecture while ensuring operational requirements shape infrastructure decisions. As the IT operations management market expands from $36.3 billion in 2025 to $64.9 billion by 2030, IT departments are developing increasingly sophisticated infrastructure management capabilities that CMMS implementations should tap into.

Security and Compliance

IT should be Responsible and Accountable for user authentication, role-based access control, security patch management, and compliance with data protection regulations. Operations should be Consulted on access requirements ensuring technicians can perform work efficiently. Compliance officers should be Informed of security configuration changes affecting audit requirements.

Security governance becomes particularly critical given that security represents the greatest challenge to IT-OT convergence. IT security expertise must balance operational access needs, especially as predictive maintenance capabilities require integrating sensor data from operational technology environments into CMMS platforms.

Workflow Design and Configuration

Operations should be Responsible and Accountable for work order workflows, preventive maintenance schedules, asset hierarchy structures, and maintenance procedures documented in the system. IT should be Consulted to ensure workflow configurations align with system capabilities and do not create performance issues. Department managers should be Informed of workflow changes affecting their teams.

This allocation recognizes that operations teams understand maintenance processes that CMMS must support. The integration of IoT, AI-driven analytics, and mobile-first solutions shaping 2025 CMMS trends requires workflow designs built around these capabilities, making operations ownership of workflow configuration essential for technology adoption success.

Data Standards and Quality

Operations should be Responsible and Accountable for defining asset data standards, work classification schemas, and parts inventory categorization. IT should be Consulted on data structure implications for system performance and integration requirements. Finance should be Consulted when data standards affect cost tracking and reporting.

Data governance enables the data-driven decision-making that increasingly drives CMMS purchasing decisions, with customizable dashboards, predictive analytics, and automated reporting helping organizations evaluate maintenance performance and optimize resource allocation. Poor data quality undermines these capabilities regardless of system sophistication.

Integration Management

IT should be Responsible and Accountable for technical integration implementation, API security, data mapping, and integration monitoring. Operations should be Accountable for defining integration requirements and validating that connected systems meet operational needs. Both departments should be Consulted on integration priorities and resource allocation.

Integration governance proves increasingly important as CMMS platforms shift from standalone systems to integrated business ecosystems. Organizations need integrations connecting CMMS to ERP, building management systems, IoT platforms, and business intelligence tools. Effective integration requires both IT technical implementation expertise and operations validation that connections deliver operational value.

User Training and Support

Operations should be Responsible and Accountable for training users on maintenance workflows, work order processes, and operational procedures within CMMS. IT should be Responsible for technical training on system navigation, mobile app usage, and troubleshooting technical issues. HR should be Consulted to ensure training aligns with onboarding processes.

Training responsibility allocation addresses the root cause of adoption failures. Even the best CMMS fails if users do not adopt it, with structured change management, ongoing training, and early wins communication driving adoption. Operations teams can deliver operationally relevant training, while IT handles technical skill development.

Change Management

Operations should be Responsible for managing changes to maintenance processes, workflows, and operational procedures. IT should be Responsible for managing technical changes to system configuration, integrations, and infrastructure. Both departments should be Consulted on changes affecting the other’s domain. A change advisory board should provide Accountability for major changes affecting multiple departments.

Change management governance prevents the configuration chaos that creates technical debt and performance issues. Clear change processes become essential as CMMS implementations mature and organizations request customizations supporting specific operational needs.

Vendor Relationship Management

IT and operations should share Responsibility for vendor relationships, with IT focusing on technical support and service level enforcement while operations focuses on functional requirements and enhancement requests. Procurement should be Consulted on contract negotiations and renewals. Finance should be Informed of costs and budget implications.

Shared vendor management draws on both departments’ expertise. IT brings procurement experience and technical evaluation capabilities, while operations assesses whether vendor capabilities meet maintenance management needs. This collaboration matters given 55% of small and midsize businesses use managed IT services, making vendor relationship management increasingly central to IT operations.

The Dual-Administrator Model

Most organizations achieve success with dual-administrator structures assigning both a functional administrator from operations and a technical administrator from IT. This model balances operational relevance with technical expertise.

The functional administrator, typically from the maintenance or facilities team, handles day-to-day system configuration, user support for operational questions, workflow optimization, custom report creation, and end-user training. This person should have deep maintenance domain knowledge, strong analytical skills identifying process improvements, and sufficient technical aptitude to navigate system administration interfaces. They serve as the primary contact for maintenance staff and ensure CMMS supports operational needs.

The technical administrator from IT manages system infrastructure, security configuration, backup and disaster recovery, integration development and maintenance, technical troubleshooting, and performance monitoring. This person should understand enterprise software architecture, database administration, API integrations, and cybersecurity best practices. They ensure CMMS meets technical standards and integrates properly with other enterprise systems.

The dual-administrator model succeeds when both administrators have clearly defined responsibilities, regular coordination meetings discussing upcoming changes, shared access to system administration functions allowing either to address urgent issues, and mutual respect for expertise domains. Many organizations create written charters defining each administrator’s responsibilities and escalation procedures for issues requiring both perspectives.

This structure directly addresses the collaboration challenges that undermine technology implementations. Cross-functional teams enhance integration of knowledge across functional boundaries, with diverse skills and expertise improving efficiency by breaking down silos and facilitating better communication across departments.

Establishing Cross-Functional Governance Structures

Beyond individual role definitions, successful CMMS governance requires organizational structures facilitating cross-functional decision-making. Steering committees, working groups, and escalation procedures create coordination mechanisms preventing departmental silos.

The CMMS Steering Committee

A steering committee provides strategic oversight and resolves conflicts that functional and technical administrators cannot address independently. Effective steering committees include representation from operations, IT, finance, and executive leadership, meet quarterly or more frequently during implementation phases, and have documented authority to make binding decisions about system strategy and resource allocation.

The committee’s primary responsibilities include setting CMMS strategic direction aligned with organizational objectives, prioritizing enhancement requests and integration projects when resources are limited, resolving ownership disputes between departments, reviewing system performance metrics and user adoption data, approving major configuration changes affecting multiple departments, and ensuring CMMS investments deliver measurable business value.

Executive sponsorship is critical for steering committee effectiveness. Without executive authority, committees become discussion forums rather than decision-making bodies. Facility directors or COO sponsors provide authority needed to enforce committee decisions and allocate resources across departments. This sponsorship proves particularly important given that organizations are strengthening collaboration with real estate, finance, and workplace strategy teams to manage facilities more effectively.

An effective steering committee charter clearly defines decision-making authority, specifying which decisions require committee approval versus those administrators can make independently. The charter should establish escalation procedures for urgent issues requiring faster resolution than quarterly meetings allow.

Working Groups for Specific Initiatives

Beyond the steering committee, temporary working groups address specific CMMS initiatives requiring cross-functional collaboration. A system selection working group brings together operations, IT, finance, and end users to evaluate CMMS vendors and make purchase recommendations. An integration working group coordinates connections between CMMS and ERP, building management systems, or IoT platforms. A mobile deployment working group plans tablet and smartphone rollouts for field technicians.

Working groups succeed when they have clear objectives and deliverables, defined timelines for completing work, representation from all affected departments, authority to make recommendations to the steering committee, and documented outputs guiding implementation teams. Unlike ongoing steering committees, working groups disband once they accomplish specific objectives.

This working group approach aligns with research showing that cross-functional teams are pivotal in technology management, where demands for efficiency and innovation are paramount. Members bringing diverse skills enhance knowledge integration across functional boundaries, with efficiency gains stemming from breaking down silos.

Communication and Escalation Procedures

Even well-designed governance structures require clear communication protocols ensuring information flows between stakeholders. Effective procedures include regular administrator coordination meetings, monthly operational reviews sharing system usage metrics and user feedback, quarterly steering committee meetings for strategic decisions, annual governance reviews assessing whether current structures still meet organizational needs, and documented escalation paths for conflicts requiring higher-level resolution.

Escalation procedures should specify response timeframes. Issues affecting system availability or preventing users from completing critical work require immediate escalation to both IT and operations leadership. Strategic disagreements about system direction can follow slower escalation through steering committees. Clear escalation criteria prevent minor issues from consuming executive time while ensuring critical problems receive appropriate attention.

These structured communication approaches address the sobering reality that 86% of respondents blame lack of collaboration or ineffective communication for workplace failures. Formal communication protocols prevent the informal coordination breakdowns that undermine even well-intentioned cross-functional initiatives.

Governance in Practice: Key Decision Areas

Understanding governance principles differs from applying them to specific CMMS decisions. Several recurring decision areas benefit from clear governance protocols established in advance.

Data Ownership and Quality Management

Data governance determines who owns various data domains within CMMS and who has authority to modify master data. Operations should own maintenance-specific data including asset master data, preventive maintenance templates, work classifications, and parts catalogues. IT should own user accounts, role definitions, and security groups. Finance should own cost centers and budget codes used in work order accounting.

Data quality standards require cross-functional agreement. Operations defines acceptable ranges for equipment specifications and maintenance intervals. IT establishes technical standards for data formats and integration requirements. Both departments must agree on data validation rules preventing invalid entries while not creating unnecessary barriers for end users.

This governance becomes increasingly critical as data becomes the foundation for every major decision in facilities management operations. Poor data quality undermines the customizable dashboards, predictive analytics, and automated reporting that drive modern CMMS value.

Master data change procedures should specify approval requirements. Adding new asset classes or modifying work order workflows might require functional administrator approval and steering committee notification. Creating new user accounts might require IT administrator approval and security team review. The governance framework should clearly specify which data changes require formal approval versus those administrators can make independently.

System Customization and Configuration Limits

CMMS platforms offer extensive customization options, but not every possible customization is advisable. Governance frameworks should establish guidelines for when to customize versus when to adapt processes to standard system functionality. Excessive customization creates upgrade difficulties, increases vendor support costs, and complicates training.

A common governance guideline is the 80/20 rule: if CMMS supports 80% of required functionality through standard configuration, adapt processes for the remaining 20% rather than pursuing extensive customization. Exceptions require steering committee approval and documented business cases showing customization benefits outweigh long-term costs.

Operations should own decisions about maintenance process adaptation when standard CMMS workflows differ from current procedures. IT should own decisions about technical architecture and integration approaches. Both departments should jointly evaluate customization requests requiring development work, assessing operational benefits against technical complexity and ongoing maintenance requirements.

This balanced approach matters because CMMS platforms are shifting from standalone systems to integrated ecosystems, with integration to multiple business applications driving greater operational efficiency. Excessive customization can complicate these integrations and create technical debt hindering future technology adoption.

Integration Architecture and Data Flow

Integration decisions affect both operational effectiveness and technical architecture, requiring balanced IT and operations input. Operations should define integration requirements based on operational needs: which data must flow between systems, how frequently, and what information maintenance teams need from connected systems. IT should design integration architecture ensuring security, reliability, and scalability.

Common integration governance questions include whether to pursue real-time integrations or scheduled batch data transfers, which system serves as master data source for shared information like asset records or employee lists, how to handle integration failures and data synchronization conflicts, and which integration approach balances operational needs with technical complexity and cost.

Integration priorities should be jointly established by operations and IT based on operational impact and technical feasibility. High-value integrations supporting critical maintenance workflows should be prioritized over nice-to-have connections. Steering committees should approve integration roadmaps ensuring both departments align on priorities and resource requirements.

This governance proves particularly important as Gartner forecasts 75% of large manufacturers implementing IT-OT integration strategies and 50% of large industrial organizations using digital twins by 2025 to achieve 10% operational efficiency improvements. Facilities management organizations face similar integration imperatives requiring formal governance.

Mobile and Remote Access Policies

Mobile CMMS access raises questions balancing operational flexibility with security requirements. Operations teams need technicians accessing CMMS from mobile devices at equipment locations. IT teams need to ensure mobile access does not create security vulnerabilities or compliance risks.

Governance frameworks should address which user roles receive mobile access, what security controls apply to mobile devices accessing CMMS, whether mobile apps can operate offline and how data synchronizes when reconnecting, and what information mobile users can access versus what remains restricted to desktop sessions. These decisions require balanced input from both departments, with operations defining operational requirements and IT establishing security controls meeting those requirements without creating unacceptable risks.

Mobile governance matters because mobile-first CMMS platforms are revolutionizing maintenance operations by enabling real-time communication, reducing administrative overhead, improving team coordination, and accelerating issue resolution. Organizations that cannot resolve mobile security governance conflicts miss these operational benefits.

Change Management and Governance Evolution

CMMS governance is not a one-time exercise but an ongoing process that must evolve as organizational needs change. Effective governance frameworks include mechanisms for adaptation and improvement.

Governance Framework Reviews

Annual governance reviews assess whether current structures still serve organizational needs. These reviews should evaluate whether RACI matrices accurately reflect how work actually gets done, if steering committee membership still represents key stakeholders, whether escalation procedures resolve conflicts efficiently, and if decision-making authority is appropriately distributed.

Governance structures designed during initial implementation may need adjustment as organizations learn what works and what creates bottlenecks. User feedback provides valuable governance input. If maintenance technicians consistently report that approval workflows cause delays, governance frameworks may need adjustment. If IT teams struggle to maintain system performance because operations teams make configuration changes without coordination, governance procedures may need tightening.

Regular user surveys and feedback mechanisms identify governance friction points before they become major problems. This proactive approach addresses the reality that over 50% of organizations cite poor implementation planning as their biggest CMMS adoption challenge, with governance being central to implementation planning success.

Adapting Governance for Organizational Changes

Organizational changes like mergers, acquisitions, or departmental restructuring require governance updates. When multi-site organizations implement CMMS across new locations, governance must address whether each site has local administrators or whether centralized administration serves all locations. When departments merge or split, RACI matrices need updates reflecting new reporting relationships.

Technology changes also drive governance evolution. Cloud CMMS migration may shift some IT responsibilities from infrastructure management to vendor relationship management. IoT integration may require new governance procedures addressing sensor data quality and automated work order generation from sensor alerts. The governance framework should include procedures for adapting to these technology changes.

This adaptability becomes critical as 28% of organizations have embedded AI solutions in FM operations, rising to 46% for large organizations, according to JLL’s Global Real Estate Technology Survey. New technologies require governance updates ensuring both IT and operations contribute appropriate expertise to adoption decisions.

Building Governance Maturity Over Time

Organizations often start with simpler governance structures during initial CMMS implementation, then increase sophistication as they gain experience. An organization might begin with basic division of responsibilities and informal coordination between IT and operations administrators, then add steering committees as strategic decisions become more complex, then establish working groups for specific initiatives as CMMS scope expands.

This graduated approach lets organizations build governance maturity aligned with current needs rather than implementing heavy processes prematurely. The key is ensuring even simple initial governance includes clear accountability and coordination mechanisms, with documented procedures for escalating issues that simple structures cannot resolve.

Organizations can benchmark governance maturity against industry adoption patterns. With 68% of US enterprises increasing CMMS budgets in 2025 and the global market growing from $1.29 billion in 2024 to projected $2.41 billion by 2030, organizations implementing strong governance early gain competitive advantages over peers struggling with ownership conflicts.

Measuring Governance Effectiveness

How do you know if your CMMS governance model is working? Several metrics indicate governance health and highlight areas needing improvement.

Decision Cycle Time

Track how long major CMMS decisions take from initial proposal to final resolution. Effective governance resolves most decisions within defined timeframes: operational configuration changes within one week, integration requests within one month, strategic direction changes within one quarter. Extended decision cycles suggest governance bottlenecks requiring process refinement.

This metric proves particularly important given that poor implementation planning is the biggest challenge for over 50% of organizations, with slow decision-making directly contributing to planning failures and implementation delays.

Conflict Escalation Frequency

Monitor how often IT and operations escalate disagreements to steering committees or executive leadership. Some escalation is normal and healthy, indicating governance structures appropriately elevate decisions requiring higher-level input. Excessive escalation suggests RACI matrices leave too many responsibilities ambiguous or that administrators lack sufficient decision-making authority. Zero escalation might indicate decisions are not being made or that one department dominates without appropriate checks.

Organizations should aim to reduce escalation frequency by 60% or more after implementing formal governance structures. This benchmark reflects the collaboration improvements that properly designed governance delivers.

User Satisfaction Scores

Regular user surveys measuring satisfaction with CMMS functionality, system performance, and support responsiveness indicate whether governance delivers outcomes meeting operational needs. Declining user satisfaction might signal governance prioritizes technical considerations over operational effectiveness, or that coordination failures create user experience problems.

User satisfaction directly impacts adoption rates, which matter because structured change management, ongoing training, and early wins communication drive CMMS adoption. Poor governance undermines these adoption drivers regardless of training quality.

System Performance and Stability

Technical metrics like system uptime, response times, data quality error rates, and integration reliability indicate whether governance ensures proper technical stewardship. Declining technical performance might suggest operations teams make configuration changes without adequate IT coordination, or that governance does not allocate sufficient IT resources for system maintenance.

Performance monitoring becomes increasingly important as mobile-first solutions and real-time integrations become standard CMMS capabilities. These technologies require solid IT infrastructure management that effective governance ensures.

Business Value Realization

Ultimately, governance should ensure CMMS delivers measurable business value. Track metrics like work order completion rates, preventive maintenance compliance, asset downtime reduction, and maintenance cost per unit produced. Effective governance ensures both IT and operations align activities toward business outcomes rather than optimizing for departmental objectives.

Organizations implementing shared governance should target the operational efficiency improvements that Gartner forecasts for organizations using digital twins: 10% operational efficiency gains. While not all organizations implement digital twins, the efficiency benchmark illustrates the business value effective IT-OT integration can deliver through proper governance.

Implementing Shared Governance in Your Organization

If your organization currently has unclear CMMS ownership or struggles with IT versus operations conflicts, how do you transition to shared governance? Several steps can guide this transition.

Start with Executive Sponsorship

Shared governance requires executive support. Without authority from facility directors, CIOs, or operational leadership, governance structures lack enforcement power. Begin by securing executive sponsorship from leaders representing both IT and operations, clearly articulating business problems that current ownership ambiguity creates and how shared governance addresses them.

Executive sponsors should jointly charter governance structures, defining authority and ensuring both departments commit to following governance procedures. This joint sponsorship signals that governance is neither IT takeover nor operations power grab, but collaborative framework serving organizational objectives.

This executive alignment matters because organizations are strengthening collaboration with real estate, finance, and workplace strategy teams to improve facilities management effectiveness. CMMS governance provides the operational foundation enabling this broader strategic collaboration.

Document Current Responsibilities

Before designing ideal governance, document how CMMS management currently works. Who makes decisions about workflow configuration, user access, system upgrades, and integration priorities? Who do users contact for support? Who manages vendor relationships? Current-state assessment identifies governance gaps and overlaps requiring clarification.

Interview stakeholders from both IT and operations to understand their perspectives on ownership and identify historical conflict points. These insights help design governance frameworks addressing actual pain points rather than theoretical problems.

This documentation proves valuable because without governance, regular KPI reviews, and clear ownership, CMMS systems become stale and underused. Understanding current state provides baseline for measuring governance improvement.

Build the RACI Matrix Collaboratively

Develop your CMMS RACI matrix through facilitated sessions including IT leadership, operations leadership, and CMMS administrators from both departments. Work through each major CMMS activity, discussing which department should be Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, and Informed. When disagreements arise, focus on which department has expertise most relevant to each activity and which organizational structure best serves end users.

Document not just RACI assignments but reasoning behind them. This documentation helps future administrators understand logic behind governance decisions and provides context when governance evolves.

Collaborative RACI development addresses the 86% of workplace failures attributed to lack of collaboration or ineffective communication. The RACI creation process itself becomes opportunity to build collaborative relationships that governance will depend upon.

Establish the Dual-Administrator Structure

If your organization currently has single CMMS administrator, establish dual-administrator model by identifying counterpart from the other department. If operations currently administers CMMS alone, work with IT to identify someone who can manage technical administration. If IT currently owns CMMS, identify operations person who can handle functional administration.

The transition period requires patience. New administrators need time to learn responsibilities and build working relationships. Schedule regular coordination meetings helping administrators develop collaborative practices and preventing them from reverting to siloed operation.

This dual-administrator approach builds on research showing cross-functional teams break down silos, facilitating better communication and collaboration across departments, with efficiency gains resulting from knowledge integration across functional boundaries.

Launch the Steering Committee

Form steering committee with clear terms of reference defining membership, meeting frequency, decision-making authority, and escalation procedures. First steering committee meetings should focus on approving governance framework, reviewing CMMS strategic objectives, and establishing roadmap for addressing accumulated governance debt from previous ownership model.

Early steering committee success stories build credibility. Identify CMMS decision that previous governance could not resolve, then demonstrate how new governance structure addresses it efficiently. This proves governance value and encourages stakeholder engagement.

Steering committees prove particularly important as JLL research shows 92% of organizations piloting AI tools in CRE use cases, up from 61% in 2024. Strategic technology adoption decisions like AI integration require steering committee oversight ensuring both IT and operations perspectives shape implementation approaches.

Building a Culture of Collaboration

Governance structures and RACI matrices provide frameworks, but successful CMMS management ultimately depends on cultivating collaborative culture between IT and operations. Several practices support this cultural shift.

Celebrate shared wins publicly. When IT and operations successfully collaborate on major CMMS enhancement, highlight this success in organizational communications. Recognition reinforces that collaboration drives results and makes cooperation professionally rewarding.

Establish shared KPIs rather than departmental metrics. If IT is measured solely on system uptime and operations solely on maintenance cost reduction, each department optimizes for its metrics potentially at expense of the other. Shared KPIs like overall equipment effectiveness or work order cycle time incentivize collaboration toward common objectives.

Rotate staff between departments when possible. Operations analysts spending time embedded with IT gain appreciation for technical constraints and security requirements. IT analysts working temporarily with maintenance teams understand operational pressures and workflow realities. These rotations build empathy and professional relationships facilitating future collaboration.

Provide cross-functional training ensuring both departments understand each other’s domains. Operations staff benefit from learning about system architecture, integration complexity, and cybersecurity fundamentals. IT staff benefit from understanding maintenance workflows, reliability strategies, and operational KPIs. This shared knowledge base improves communication and reduces conflicts arising from misunderstanding.

These cultural investments address the sobering reality that Deloitte research identifies team alignment and unsupportive culture as main roadblocks to cross-functional collaboration. Technology and processes alone cannot overcome cultural barriers; deliberate culture-building must complement governance structures.

Conclusion: Shared Governance as Competitive Advantage

The question is not whether IT or operations should own CMMS. The question is how to structure governance ensuring both departments contribute expertise toward shared organizational objectives. CMMS systems are simultaneously enterprise software requiring technical administration and operational tools requiring maintenance domain knowledge. Single-department ownership inevitably underweights one perspective, creating suboptimal outcomes that contribute to the 70% CMMS project failure rate.

Shared governance through clear RACI models, dual-administrator structures, and cross-functional steering committees provides frameworks successful organizations need. Operations should own maintenance workflows, asset data structures, and operational configuration. IT should own system infrastructure, security, and integration architecture. Both departments should collaborate on priorities, change management, and continuous improvement.

The business case for shared governance strengthens as technology advances. McKinsey research shows organizations implementing effective IT-OT convergence can capture over $100 million in incremental value through accelerated use cases, democratized data access, cloud-native capabilities, and improved frontline decision-making. Facilities management organizations face identical convergence opportunities requiring governance enabling collaboration rather than territorial battles.

The transition to shared governance requires executive sponsorship, documented responsibilities, and intentional culture building. Organizations investing in this transition find their CMMS implementations deliver greater business value, achieve higher user adoption, and require less firefighting as governance prevents conflicts before they escalate. With 68% of US enterprises increasing CMMS budgets in 2025 to boost operational transparency and asset utilization, organizations getting governance right gain competitive advantages over peers struggling with ownership conflicts.

Your maintenance management system is too important to let ownership ambiguity undermine its potential. Establish governance frameworks that harness both IT technical expertise and operations domain knowledge, creating CMMS management greater than either department could achieve alone. For organizations ready to implement CMMS with proper governance from day one, explore how Infodeck’s platform supports shared governance models with role-based access controls, configurable workflows, and comprehensive integration capabilities enabling collaborative IT-operations management. Book a demo to see how technology can support governance best practices.

Sources

• Tractian: Complete Guide to CMMS Implementation
• 9cv9: Top 20 CMMS Software Statistics in 2025
• Atera: IT Statistics for 2026
• Facilities Dive: 5 Facilities Management Trends for 2026
• TechTarget: Benefits and Challenges of IT-OT Convergence
• Gartner: Bridging IT and OT for the Factory of the Future
• McKinsey: IT-OT Convergence in Scaling Business Operations
• Mordor Intelligence: IT Operations Management Market Report
• Maintenance World: Five CMMS Trends for 2025
• IoT For All: IT-OT Convergence in Manufacturing
• Cascade: Cross-Functional Teams Drive Innovation
• ResearchGate: Cross-Functional Team Dynamics in Technology Management
• JLL: Global State of Facilities Management Report
• Facilio: CMMS Implementation Guide