The short version: Plant Engineering’s recurring maintenance surveys, produced with sponsorship from Advanced Technology Services (ATS), are one of the most consistent publicly available benchmarks for how plants manage maintenance. Across directly comparable editions from 2016 through 2020, roughly 45 to 55 percent of respondents reported using in-house spreadsheets or schedules, roughly 39 to 46 percent reported using paper or clipboards, and roughly 50 to 62 percent reported using a CMMS. Those categories overlap, because respondents could select every technology they used, so a facility using spreadsheets or paper may also use a CMMS. These figures do not show that half of plants lack maintenance software. The latest complete, directly comparable table we verified is from 2020, making these historical benchmarks rather than a precise picture of current adoption. A CMMS vendor, UpKeep, reported 65 percent CMMS use in a 2024 survey, but a vendor-published figure should not be presented as an industry-wide census.
The number everyone cites, and where it comes from
If you have seen a CMMS pitch, you have seen some version of “X percent of plants still use spreadsheets” or “still on paper.” The figure is real, but it has a specific origin worth knowing before you cite it.
The benchmark comes from the Plant Engineering Maintenance Study, a recurring survey of Plant Engineering readers and subscribers responsible for maintenance at manufacturing and other asset-intensive facilities, rather than a representative census of all plants. In the 2019 edition, for example, 77 percent of respondents held engineering, maintenance, or supervisory roles, with an average of 23 years in the industry. It is one of the most consistent publicly available benchmarks the field has. It is also produced with sponsorship from Advanced Technology Services (ATS), a maintenance services provider. As with any sponsored industry research, the figures are best attributed to the study by name rather than treated as an independent census. This is a disclosure about sourcing, not a criticism of the data, which is drawn from real survey responses.
What the Plant Engineering data actually shows
The study asks which technologies facilities use to monitor and manage maintenance. The key structural point, and the one most often lost: respondents can select more than one. Spreadsheets, CMMS, and paper are not mutually exclusive, so the percentages do not sum to 100 and cannot be read as market share.
| Edition | CMMS | In-house spreadsheets/schedules | Paper/clipboards |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | 62% | 52% | 39% |
| 2017 | 53% | 52% | 39% |
| 2018 | 53% | 55% | 44% |
| 2019 | 58% | 45% | 39% |
| 2020 | 50% | 47% | 46% |
Table 1: Maintenance management technologies in use, Plant Engineering Maintenance Study (produced with ATS sponsorship). Questions were multi-select and category wording changed slightly between editions, so the percentages overlap and should be treated as directional benchmarks rather than a clean market-share time series. A note on 2020: Plant Engineering also reports a 52 percent CMMS figure that edition, but that refers to CMMS as a maintenance strategy; the 50 percent above is from the separate technologies-in-use question, which is what this table tracks. ATS has separately reported 54 percent for CMMS and 49 percent for spreadsheets in a survey of approximately 200 manufacturing facilities; a comparable paper figure was not verified in primary text.
Two things stand out. First, the figures move year to year (CMMS shows 62 percent in 2016 and 53 percent in 2018), and those differences should not be treated as evidence of a trend without consistent sampling and statistical testing: the respondent sample changed between editions, and reported margins of error were sizable, approximately plus or minus 6.9 percentage points in the 2019 edition and plus or minus 7.5 points in 2020. Second, spreadsheet use and CMMS use both run high in the same survey, which is the direct evidence that they coexist. In 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019, the CMMS and spreadsheet percentages together exceeded 100 percent, which proves that at least some respondents used both.
Why “half still use spreadsheets” does not mean “half have no CMMS”
This is the interpretation error at the center of the topic. When a plant reports using spreadsheets, that does not mean it lacks a CMMS. Many facilities run a CMMS for work orders and asset history while planners still build schedules, track KPIs, or manage specific workflows in Excel. In the Plant Engineering editions where spreadsheets ran around half, CMMS use also ran around half or higher, which is only possible because the categories overlap.
So the accurate reading of the most-cited statistic is narrow: roughly half of surveyed facilities use spreadsheets somewhere in their maintenance workflow. It is not evidence that half of plants have no maintenance software. A claim like “half of plants still have no CMMS” is a misreading of a survey that permitted multiple answers.
The competing figure: vendor-published adoption numbers
More recent adoption figures also appear in vendor-published reports, which carry a disclosed commercial stake.
One recent example is UpKeep’s State of Maintenance Report, which reported CMMS adoption around 65 percent in its 2024 edition, drawn from maintenance and reliability executives worldwide, with a focus on U.S.-based small to midsized companies. UpKeep is a CMMS vendor, so the figure is best read as reflecting that survey rather than a neutral industry census. The figure may be useful, but it is not an independently published industry census, and it should be cited with the source named.
The pattern to notice: the two groups of figures discussed here are a publisher-conducted, industry-sponsored survey (Plant Engineering with ATS) and vendor-published surveys (UpKeep and others). They report different numbers because they survey different populations in different ways. Anyone citing a single clean figure as the industry truth is smoothing over that reality.
What can and cannot be said accurately today
Pulling the provenance together, here is the defensible version:
Across the Plant Engineering surveys conducted from 2016 through 2020, roughly half of respondents reported using spreadsheets somewhere in maintenance management, while a meaningful share reported using paper records.
What cannot be said accurately is a precise, current, independent percentage. The latest complete, directly comparable technology breakdown we verified is from 2020. ATS later reported 54 percent for CMMS and 49 percent for spreadsheets in a survey of approximately 200 manufacturing facilities, but that summary does not report a comparable paper figure. The newer adoption figure discussed here comes from a vendor-published report. Later maintenance research exists, including a 2026 Plant Engineering study published in April 2026, but we did not find a recent, publicly posted, directly comparable CMMS versus spreadsheet versus paper table. We did not identify a fully independent, current census, so the most accurate practice is to cite a specific source and year rather than presenting any single figure as a neutral present-day census.
For definitions of the systems discussed here, see our maintenance and reliability glossary.
Frequently Asked Questions
How many plants still use spreadsheets for maintenance?
In the Plant Engineering Maintenance Study (produced with ATS sponsorship), in-house spreadsheets were reported by roughly 45 to 55 percent of facilities across its 2016 to 2020 editions. That figure counts any spreadsheet use in maintenance management and overlaps with CMMS use, so it does not mean those facilities lack maintenance software.
What percentage of plants still use paper for maintenance?
The same Plant Engineering study reported paper or clipboard use in roughly 39 to 46 percent of facilities across those editions. As with spreadsheets, this overlaps with other methods, since a facility can use paper alongside a CMMS.
Does “half of plants use spreadsheets” mean half have no CMMS?
No. This is a common misreading. The surveys that produce the spreadsheet figure allow respondents to select multiple technologies, and in the same surveys CMMS use also runs around half or higher. In several editions, the CMMS and spreadsheet percentages together exceed 100 percent, which is only possible if some respondents use both. The spreadsheet figure indicates spreadsheet use somewhere in the workflow, not the absence of software.
What is the most reliable source for CMMS adoption rates?
The Plant Engineering Maintenance Study is one of the most consistent publicly available benchmarks, though it is produced with ATS sponsorship and its most recent complete, directly comparable technology breakdown is from 2020. Vendor reports such as UpKeep’s State of Maintenance Report offer newer figures but survey different populations and carry a commercial stake. We did not identify a fully independent, current census, so the most accurate practice is to cite a specific source and year rather than a single industry-wide number.
Why do CMMS adoption statistics vary so much between sources?
Because different surveys measure different populations and define categories differently, and because multi-select surveys produce overlapping percentages that cannot be compared directly with single-answer surveys. An industry-sponsored survey of manufacturing readers and a CMMS vendor’s survey will report different adoption rates, and year-to-year swings within a single survey can fall inside its margin of error.
Sources and References
- Plant Engineering 2019 Maintenance Report, produced with sponsorship from Advanced Technology Services (ATS), plantengineering.com. Technologies-in-use question: CMMS 58 percent, in-house spreadsheets/schedules 45 percent, paper 39 percent (respondent n=199). Reported margin of error approximately plus or minus 6.9 points. Report PDF
- Plant Engineering / ATS 2020 Maintenance Study Results. Technologies-in-use question: CMMS 50 percent, spreadsheets 47 percent, paper 46 percent. The separately reported 52 percent CMMS figure that edition refers to CMMS as a maintenance strategy, not the technologies-in-use question. Reported margin of error approximately plus or minus 7.5 points. Study results PDF
- Plant Engineering 2016 Maintenance Study. plantengineering.com
- Plant Engineering 2017 Maintenance Study. plantengineering.com
- Plant Engineering 2018 Maintenance Study. plantengineering.com
- Advanced Technology Services, maintenance findings reporting CMMS approximately 54 percent and spreadsheets approximately 49 percent in a survey of approximately 200 manufacturing facilities; the accessible summary does not report a comparable paper figure. advancedtech.com
- Plant Engineering 2026 State of Manufacturing Operations Maintenance Study (published April 2026). Covers technology and maintenance trends; we did not find a publicly posted, directly comparable CMMS versus spreadsheet versus paper table. plantengineering.com
- UpKeep, State of Maintenance Report (2024 edition), reporting CMMS adoption around 65 percent, drawn from maintenance and reliability executives worldwide with a focus on U.S.-based small to midsized companies. Vendor-published survey; UpKeep is a CMMS provider. upkeep.com
- Note on secondary sources: many CMMS adoption figures on vendor blogs are reassemblies of the Plant Engineering data above, sometimes without the year or the sponsorship attached, and sometimes mismatched across editions, including conflating the strategy and technologies questions. Figures here are traced to the primary study summaries and reports.
