Asset Data for Utilities: IBM Maximo & Salesforce

A practical guide to data-led asset management for utilities and infrastructure operators – covering IBM Maximo, Salesforce, and the case for acting now.

1. Why Now: The Moment Has Arrived

The asset data problem in utilities is not new. Fragmented systems, poor data quality, and disconnected operational and customer platforms have been a feature of the sector for decades. What is new is the convergence of regulatory pressure, investment scale, and public scrutiny that makes poor asset data governance not just inefficient but genuinely dangerous – commercially, legally, and reputationally.

Three developments have changed the stakes significantly.

A Record Investment Cycle Demands Data You Can Trust

In December 2024, Ofwat published its PR24 final determinations, approving a £104 billion investment programme for the water sector in England and Wales covering 2025 to 2030. Enhancement infrastructure spend will quadruple compared to the previous period. This is the largest capital commitment the sector has seen.

That scale of investment creates a data imperative. At £104 billion, the cost of mis-prioritising investment – of spending on the wrong assets, in the wrong order, for the wrong reasons – is enormous. Ofwat’s outcomes framework holds water companies directly accountable for what that investment delivers, using performance commitments to measure the service levels customers pay for. Operators cannot simply spend the money and report activity. They must demonstrate continuous, auditable evidence of outcomes delivered.

For organisations that have managed regulatory compliance as a retrospective reporting exercise, this is a structural shift. The data infrastructure required to support it – reliable asset records, integrated performance tracking, real-time field data capture – needs to be in place before the investment cycle peaks, not after it.

Asset Failure Is Generating Enforcement Action at Scale

In July 2025, the Environment Agency published its pollution incident report covering 2016 to 2024. The findings were stark. Serious pollution incidents among England’s nine water and sewerage companies rose by 60% in 2024 compared to the previous year, to 75 category 1 and 2 incidents – the highest level recorded. Across all categories, total incidents reached 2,801, up nearly 30% on 2023.

The Environment Agency cited three root causes: persistent underinvestment in new infrastructure, poor asset maintenance, and reduced resilience. Three companies – Thames Water, Southern Water and Yorkshire Water – were responsible for 81% of major events. The Agency described the trend as ‘deeply concerning’ and noted that the sector was moving further away from meeting its own targets.

These incidents are not random events. They are, in the main, the predictable consequence of not knowing what condition assets are in, not detecting deterioration early enough, and not having the operational intelligence to intervene before failure. Poor asset data does not just create inefficiency – it creates environmental incidents, enforcement action, and the kind of reputational damage that is very difficult to recover from.

Source: Environment Agency, Water and Sewerage Companies in England: Pollution Incident Report 2016-2024, July 2025

Data Governance Has Become a Board-Level Risk

In May 2026, the Information Commissioner’s Office fined South Staffordshire Water nearly £1 million following a Cl0p ransomware attack that resulted in the personal data of 633,887 customers and employees being published on the dark web. The initial access occurred in September 2020. The attacker remained undetected for almost two years before the intrusion was identified only when IT performance issues prompted an internal investigation in July 2022.

The case illustrates a broader truth: in asset-intensive organisations, the risks associated with poor data governance are no longer confined to operational inefficiency. They extend to cyber resilience, regulatory compliance, and the integrity of critical infrastructure. The UK government’s Cyber Security and Resilience Bill, expected to be introduced to Parliament in 2025-26, will expand mandatory reporting requirements and raise security standards for critical infrastructure operators – further tightening the regulatory environment.

Meanwhile, the EU’s NIS2 Directive, which covers 18 critical sectors including water, energy, and transport, sets binding requirements on cybersecurity risk management, incident reporting, and supply chain security across European operators. For Nucleo’s clients with operations in Ireland and mainland Europe, NIS2 compliance is already a live operational requirement, not a future concern.

Source: Information Commissioner’s Office, Fine Notice: South Staffordshire Plc and South Staffordshire Water Plc, May 2026

2. The Asset Data Challenge

Why Data in Asset-Intensive Businesses Is Different

Asset-intensive businesses operate at a scale and complexity that most industries do not encounter. A single water utility may manage tens of thousands of individual assets across hundreds of sites, with maintenance cycles spanning decades. A transmission network operator may hold infrastructure that predates digital record-keeping by half a century. The volume, variety, and vintage of data involved creates challenges that generic enterprise data strategies do not account for.

The most common problems Nucleo encounters when working with these organisations are:

• Siloed systems that do not speak to each other – SCADA, EAM, GIS, finance, HR and field mobility tools all generating data in isolation
• Inconsistent asset hierarchies – the same physical asset described differently in different systems, making aggregation unreliable
• Poor data quality at point of entry – paper-based or informal capture processes leading to incomplete work order records
• No single version of the truth – operational teams, finance, and regulators each working from different datasets, often with different conclusions
• Compliance and regulatory reporting that is labour-intensive and retrospective rather than continuous and automated

The Commercial and Operational Consequences

These data problems translate directly into cost, risk, and performance outcomes that boards and regulators care about.

3. The Opportunity: Data as a Strategic Resource

The data challenge described above is real and urgent. But it is also, for organisations willing to address it seriously, a significant competitive and operational opportunity. Utilities and infrastructure businesses that build a trusted, integrated asset data foundation ahead of their peers will be better placed to prioritise the PR24 investment cycle, demonstrate regulatory compliance continuously rather than retrospectively, respond faster when things go wrong, and make a compelling evidence-based case to boards, investors, and regulators.

This white paper sets out how Nucleo Group approaches that opportunity – drawing on deep experience with IBM Maximo, an active implementation partnership with Salesforce, and a practical understanding of how asset-intensive organisations actually work.

4. IBM Maximo: The Operational Record of Truth

What Maximo Does – and What It Should Do

IBM Maximo Application Suite is the world’s leading Enterprise Asset Management (EAM) platform, used by utilities, oil and gas operators, transport authorities, defence organisations, and heavy industrial businesses in over 120 countries. It is designed to manage the full lifecycle of physical assets: from procurement and commissioning through planned maintenance, inspection, defect management, and ultimately decommissioning.

In theory, Maximo should be the single system of record for everything that happens to a physical asset. In practice, many organisations have implemented Maximo as a work order management tool and little more – capturing activity but not generating insight. The platform’s analytical and integration capabilities are frequently underutilised.

Nucleo’s experience working with Maximo deployments across utilities and infrastructure businesses has consistently revealed the same pattern: significant investment in the platform, modest return on that investment, and a growing gap between what Maximo holds and what the business actually uses to make decisions.

Common Maximo Implementation Gaps

The failure modes are predictable. Organisations implement Maximo at a point in time, configure it to reflect the processes they had then, and do not evolve the platform as their needs change. The result is technical debt – a platform that works but does not work well.

• Asset hierarchies that do not reflect how the business thinks about performance – making roll-up reporting misleading
• Planned maintenance schedules configured but not maintained – schedules that no longer align with manufacturer guidance or actual failure history
• Work order completion data that is accurate in quantity but poor in quality – what was done is recorded, but not how long it took, what parts were used, or what condition the asset was left in
• No integration with GIS or SCADA – meaning the spatial and operational context of an asset is invisible from the EAM system
• Maximo MAS modules available but unused – Health, Predict, and Visual Inspection capabilities sitting idle while maintenance planning continues to rely on calendar-based rules

Maximo as the Foundation – Not the Destination

The right way to think about Maximo is as the operational data foundation on which better decisions are built. A well-configured, well-maintained Maximo implementation provides:

• A complete and reliable asset register, updated in real time by field activity
• A maintenance history that reflects actual work done, not just scheduled work ordered
• A failure and defect record that can support risk-based asset management and failure mode analysis
• A labour and materials record that underpins accurate cost-of-ownership calculations
• A compliance evidence trail that satisfies regulatory audit requirements without additional manual effort

Nucleo’s Approach to Maximo Optimisation

Nucleo approaches Maximo engagements through three lenses: data integrity, process alignment, and capability activation.

Data integrity work addresses the quality of what is already in the system – cleansing asset hierarchies, rationalising maintenance plans, enforcing completion quality standards, and establishing governance processes that sustain quality over time.

Process alignment ensures that how field teams interact with Maximo reflects how they actually work and what the business needs to know. This often requires a fundamental redesign of mobile workflows, supervisor review processes, and the way work orders are structured and closed.

Capability activation unlocks the Maximo modules and analytical capabilities that organisations have paid for but not deployed – building the bridge from operational data to asset intelligence.

5. Salesforce: Extending Asset Intelligence to the Customer and Field

The Gap That EAM Alone Cannot Close

IBM Maximo is the operational system of record for asset-intensive organisations – purpose-built to manage the full lifecycle of physical assets and the work that happens to them, and unmatched in that role. Maximo is deliberately focused on the asset. The customer relationship that surrounds those assets – the service history, complaints, communications, and customer experience that increasingly determine whether an operational event damages trust – belongs to a different domain. This is where Salesforce’s customer platform extends and complements Maximo’s asset platform, so that what the organisation knows about its assets translates into better outcomes for the people those assets serve.

As utilities businesses face increasing scrutiny on customer outcomes – particularly in regulated sectors where customer experience metrics are built into the price review settlement – the connection between operational performance and customer communication has become critical. An asset failure that causes a service interruption is a technical event. Whether that event damages customer trust depends almost entirely on how it is communicated and resolved.

Why Salesforce in Utilities and Asset-Intensive Environments

Salesforce has historically been associated with sales and marketing functions rather than operational environments. That positioning has shifted substantially. The Salesforce platform now provides operational and field service capability that complements EAM systems like Maximo – extending what is known about assets into the customer relationship and, where appropriate, into field execution itself. It is important to be clear at the outset that Salesforce and Maximo are not competing answers to the same question. The architecture Nucleo works to is simple: Maximo for enterprise asset management, Salesforce for customer relationship management, and either Salesforce Field Service or Maximo Mobile and Scheduler for the field service piece – selected on the client’s estate. Both field options are credible; the choice is evidence-based, not a fixed Nucleo preference. The Salesforce platform offers:

• Customer 360 – a unified view of the customer relationship that connects service history, complaints, communications, and asset-related incidents
• Salesforce Field Service – intelligent scheduling, crew management, and mobile-first field execution with offline capability, where the field layer is delivered on the Salesforce platform
• Experience Cloud – customer and partner portals that enable self-service and transparent communication around outages and planned works
• Energy and Utilities Cloud – pre-built data models and process frameworks aligned specifically to the sector
• Integration architecture – robust API capability and native connectors suited to integration with Maximo and other operational systems

The Nucleo-Salesforce Partnership

Nucleo is developing an active implementation partnership with Salesforce, with a specific focus on the utilities and asset-intensive sectors. This is a deliberate extension of Nucleo’s operational technology expertise into the customer and field performance domain – recognising that the most significant value creation opportunities for utilities businesses lie at the intersection of operational data, customer outcomes, and workforce performance.

The partnership enables Nucleo to deliver integrated programmes that address both the back-end asset data challenge (typically centred on Maximo) and the front-end customer and field execution challenge (the customer relationship centred on Salesforce, and field execution delivered on whichever platform best fits the client’s estate) – with a clear integration architecture connecting the two.

Choosing the Field Execution Layer: Maximo or Salesforce

One question consistently arises when both platforms are in play: where should the field execution layer – scheduling, dispatch, and the mobile experience for field technicians – actually live? Both IBM and Salesforce offer credible answers. IBM provides Maximo Mobile and Maximo Scheduler, native to the EAM platform and tightly coupled to the asset record. Salesforce provides Salesforce Field Service, native to the customer platform and tightly coupled to the customer relationship. There is no single correct answer, and Nucleo does not approach this with a fixed preference. The right architecture depends on the client’s existing platform investment, the complexity of their mobile workforce, and the sophistication of scheduling they require.

In practice, Nucleo weighs four factors when advising on this decision:

• Existing platform investment – where an organisation already runs a mature, well-adopted Maximo estate, keeping field execution on Maximo Mobile and Scheduler minimises integration surface and keeps the asset record authoritative. Where Salesforce is already the operational spine for customer engagement, Salesforce Field Service may be the more natural home.
• Mobile workforce complexity – the size, distribution, and working patterns of the field workforce, and the degree to which technicians need a consumer-grade, offline-capable mobile experience, influence which platform’s mobile tooling is the better fit.
• Scheduling sophistication required – the complexity of dispatch, crew optimisation, and appointment management needed. Where advanced, customer-facing appointment booking is central, Salesforce Field Service is strong; where scheduling is driven primarily by asset condition, compliance windows, and planned maintenance, Maximo Scheduler keeps that logic close to the asset.
• Integration cost and total cost of ownership – every platform boundary crossed is an integration to build, test, and maintain. Concentrating the field layer on the platform that already carries most of the relevant data often reduces long-term cost and fragility, regardless of which platform that is.

Whichever route is chosen, the underlying architectural principle holds constant: Maximo as the system of record for the asset, Salesforce as the system of record for the customer, and a deliberate, well-integrated field execution layer connecting the two. Nucleo’s role is to make that choice on evidence, not on allegiance to a single vendor – which is precisely what a genuinely client-side partner should do.

Integration Architecture: Connecting Maximo and Salesforce

A common concern for organisations considering both platforms is integration complexity. In practice, the connection between Maximo and Salesforce is well-established and technically straightforward. The typical integration architecture moves work order data, asset status, and field activity records from Maximo into Salesforce where it can be surfaced in customer-facing and supervisory contexts, while feeding completion data, customer-reported issues, and field notes back into Maximo to enrich the asset record.

Nucleo’s integration approach uses standard Maximo Integration Framework (MIF) and Salesforce Connect capabilities where appropriate, with MuleSoft or Azure Integration Services for more complex orchestration requirements. The goal is always a low-maintenance, resilient integration that survives platform upgrades without breaking.

6. Key Trends Reshaping Asset Management

Trend 1: The Shift from Calendar-Based to Condition-Based Maintenance

For decades, planned maintenance in utilities and infrastructure was organised around time: inspect the substation every two years; test the pressure relief valve annually. These schedules were not based on evidence – they were based on manufacturer guidance, engineering conservatism, and regulatory precedent.

The availability of sensor data, IoT connectivity, and improved asset performance records is making this approach increasingly difficult to justify. Organisations that can demonstrate a condition-based maintenance strategy – where intervention is triggered by actual asset behaviour rather than elapsed time – are seeing material reductions in maintenance cost without deterioration in asset reliability. Maximo Health and Predict provide the analytical framework for this transition. Organisations that have invested in the platform but continue to operate on calendar-based schedules are leaving value on the table.

Trend 2: Regulatory Shift Towards Continuous Outcomes Evidence

Ofwat’s PR24 outcomes framework is the clearest expression of a sector-wide shift: operators must now demonstrate with data that they are delivering against commitments on asset reliability, customer service, and environmental performance – continuously, not just at submission time. The PR24 claw-back mechanism means that money not spent on approved investment is returned to customers. Regulators have the tools to follow the money and assess whether it has been spent well.

Organisations that have historically managed compliance as a reporting exercise will find that approach unsustainable. Continuous, automated, auditable performance data is becoming the regulatory standard, not the regulatory aspiration. This applies equally to Ofgem’s RIIO framework, the Commission for Regulation of Utilities (CRU) in Ireland, and their European equivalents.

Trend 3: The Changing Expectations of Field Workforces

The field workforce in utilities is changing. An ageing workforce is retiring, taking institutional knowledge with them. The incoming generation of field technicians has grown up with consumer-grade digital tools and has limited tolerance for systems that are slow, clunky, or that require double-keying of information. Asset-intensive businesses that fail to modernise their field technology stack will continue to suffer from the data quality problems that come when field teams find workarounds rather than using the systems they are supposed to use. Investment in field mobility, properly integrated with EAM and customer management systems, is both a workforce productivity investment and an asset data quality investment.

Trend 4: The Integration of Sustainability and Asset Strategy

Net zero and environmental commitments are reshaping capital planning in utilities. Asset replacement decisions that were previously driven purely by condition and age now also need to account for embodied carbon, energy efficiency, and decarbonisation roadmaps. This creates a new analytical requirement – asset data that connects physical condition, financial cost, and environmental impact into a single decision framework. Most organisations do not have this today. Building it requires connecting EAM data with financial systems, emissions tracking tools, and capital programme management platforms.

Trend 5: Data Governance as Resilience, Not Just Compliance

The South Staffordshire Water case is instructive precisely because the initial intrusion was not detected for almost two years – not because of sophisticated evasion, but because the organisation lacked the monitoring capability to notice. Poor data governance is not just an operational inefficiency. It is a resilience gap. As the UK government’s Cyber Security and Resilience Bill raises mandatory reporting requirements for critical infrastructure operators, and as NIS2 beds in across Europe, the organisations that will be best placed to demonstrate compliance are those that have already built the data visibility and governance discipline that good asset management demands.

7. Predictions: What the Next Five Years Will Bring

Prediction 1: Asset Data Quality Will Become a Boardroom Issue

Within two to three years, asset data quality will move from being an operational or IT concern to a boardroom and regulatory issue. Operators that cannot demonstrate the integrity of their asset records – to their own boards, to investors, and to regulators – will face increasing scrutiny. Audit and assurance processes will increasingly test whether the data underpinning regulatory submissions and capital business cases is reliable. Organisations that have invested in data governance and continuous quality management will be significantly better positioned than those that have not. This is not a prediction about technology – it is a prediction about governance maturity.

Prediction 2: IBM Maximo’s Role Will Evolve Towards Asset Intelligence

IBM’s continued investment in the Maximo Application Suite – and specifically in the Health, Predict, and Monitor modules – signals a clear direction: Maximo is evolving from a work management system into an asset intelligence platform. Organisations running legacy Maximo versions without a clear upgrade path will face a widening capability gap. The transition is not trivial, but the capability differential is real and will become increasingly difficult to justify to regulators and boards.

Prediction 3: Integrated Customer and Operational Platforms Will Become the Norm

The separation between customer management systems and operational management systems is artificial, and regulators and customers alike are making it increasingly difficult to maintain. Within five years, leading utilities operators will have implemented connected platforms where a customer contact about a fault automatically links to the relevant asset record, triggers the right field response, and closes with an automated customer update. An integrated Maximo and Salesforce architecture – with the field execution layer delivered on whichever platform best fits the operator’s estate – provides this capability today. The barrier is not technology – it is organisational will and programme complexity.

Prediction 4: Poor Asset Data Will Become a Procurement Disqualifier

As major capital programmes in the PR24 cycle move from approval to delivery, the quality of asset data will become a material factor in how operators manage their supply chains and how they demonstrate delivery to regulators. Contractors and delivery partners working on regulated infrastructure programmes will increasingly be required to demonstrate data quality standards. Asset data that cannot withstand audit will slow approvals, delay claw-back reconciliations, and complicate the very delivery it was meant to support.

Prediction 5: Maximo-Salesforce Integration Will Become a Sector Standard

As both IBM and Salesforce deepen their sector focus on utilities and asset-intensive industries, the commercial and technical case for integrating the two platforms will become increasingly compelling. Pre-built integration templates, reference architectures, and sector-specific data models will reduce the implementation complexity that currently deters some organisations. Nucleo’s early investment in Maximo-Salesforce integration capability positions the business to lead this market as it matures.

8. The Nucleo Approach

Nucleo Group is a data and systems intelligence consultancy focused on helping organisations in regulated and asset-intensive industries make better use of their data and technology. Our work spans strategy through delivery – from data maturity assessments and asset data governance frameworks, through Maximo implementation, optimisation and upgrade programmes, to Salesforce deployments in utilities and field service environments.

What distinguishes Nucleo is practical sector knowledge. We understand how utilities businesses operate – the regulatory frameworks, the field workforce dynamics, the asset management challenges, and the organisational complexity that most technology consultancies treat as background noise. We build this understanding into every programme we design and deliver.

Our Service Areas

Working With Nucleo

Nucleo works with clients across the full spectrum of readiness – from organisations taking their first serious look at asset data quality to those navigating complex multi-platform transformation programmes. We are equally comfortable as the strategic adviser helping a leadership team frame the right question as we are as the implementation partner delivering the detailed technical work.

If you are a utilities, infrastructure, or asset-intensive business with questions about your Maximo implementation, your Salesforce strategy, or how to make better use of the data you are already generating, we would welcome a conversation.

© 2026 Nucleo Group. All rights reserved. This document is intended for information purposes only.