The problem of maintenance is not new and is a global problem. Global as in any area that needs maintaining. This effects software systems, hardware systems, le

The problem of maintenance is not new and is a global problem. Global as in any area that needs maintaining. This effects software systems, hardware systems, legal, political, medical, buildings, equipment, biological, etc., etc,. etc. In the great scheme of things, it is ignored because it is not seen as a "here and now" problem. To see the importance of any form of maintenance in any field, you have to have a long term view of things. You have to understand the "costs" of not doing maintenance for the organisation or system in question. I did not understand this long term view until I worked for someone who did understand and who was able to articulate the "costs" of not doing maintenance. People talk about "tech debt", but are unable to articulate that every system has a cost due to its usage. This is irrespective of whether or not it appears to be bringing income into the organisation or system. This income can be energy, finance (profit) or some other "thing". We live in a world in which everything decays due to ongoing use. In the case of computer systems, this decay can simply be based on changing requirements, bugs, old code running in new environments, etc. If you cannot understand that the "cost" you pay today will effect the "cost" you pay later, then you'll not understand how important the art of maintenance is. The example that jcadam gives about being "stuck" doing maintenance on "legacy" systems is a good example of the lessons about "cost" not being understood by the organisation. From the point of view of maintenance, anything you spend money to keep going is an "asset". It has a function that brings about a benefit for the organisation or system to continue in its existence. So, "legacy" systems are assets, if they need to exist then they need maintenance. However, organisations have a mentality of assigning various areas or systems as "cost" centres and other areas and systems as "profit" centres. This inherently works against both the organisation and the maintenance of its "assets". The idea that some section or system is a "cost" centre is a artifice of the "accountant" mentality. This mentality is very prevalent through most organisations whether very small or very large and all the sizes in-between. Is there anything that can be done about it? If your organisation is controlled by the "accountant" mentality then probably not. If this mentality is not in charge, then you should be able to bring a case for maintenance to those who have the authority to approve it. But, you need to show the benefits both short-term and long-term for doing maintenance for your organisation.