Show how RAMS works.
Help reveal where RAMS influences design, how teams collaborate, and which constraints shape delivery.
RAMS Industry Study Research by PHM Technology
Take the 2027 survey (opens in a new tab)
2027 RAMS Industry Study · Call for participation
You know the reality.
You know the reality.
Help the industry
see it.
What is changing in RAMS, and what is still holding it back? Share your experience of the tools, decisions and pressures shaping your work.
Take the 2027 survey (opens in a new tab)Share your perspective · Survey opens in a new tab
Every stage of practice matters.
Using AI, evaluating it, or not using it at all? Your experience belongs in the study.
The questions behind the next edition
Bring the day-to-day reality
Bring the day-to-day reality
into the industry picture.
The 2027 study builds on earlier measures of RAMS practice, with a deeper focus on AI use, value and engineering verification.
Put evidence behind AI.
Contribute your experience of adoption, checking outputs and the value that remains after review and rework.
Make priorities visible.
Show where better tools, skills, data and organisational support could make a difference.
Make sure your perspective is part of the picture.
Contribute to the 2027 RAMS Industry Study.
Published evidence
2026
Latest available report
Explore the evidence behind the next study.
The 2026 report brings together respondent findings and the 2024–2026 longitudinal analysis. The 2027 results are not yet published.
Published results · September 2026
Download 2026 report
2026 findings · 2024–2026 trends · PDF
RAMS practice, in numbers.
109 completed responses. A snapshot of the tools, priorities and organisational practices reported in the 2026 study.
Download 2026 report
2026 findings · 2024–2026 trends · PDF
Perceive RAMS as mainly a compliance activity.
2026 respondents · n=109 · Report pp. 11, 28–29Use Microsoft Excel for RAMS work.
2026 respondents · n=109 · Report pp. 12, 33Report a documented RAMS strategy.
2026 respondents · n=109 · Report pp. 13, 33Ambitions, tools and organisational practice.
The ambition is performance.
Respondents expect RAMS to improve asset performance and enter design earlier. These are expectations, not measured outcomes.
A strong case for earlier engineering influence
Share selecting each future expectation · 0–100% scale
Report pp. 15, 29. Multi-select, n=109.
Digital RAMS belongs in engineering.
More than half connect digitisation with systems engineering or organisational digital transformation.
Integration is part of the intended direction
Share selecting each digital association · 0–100% scale
Report p. 14, Figure 5. Multi-select, n=109.
A strategy does not prove execution.
A documented plan is common. The separate objectives question has a smaller response base and should not be read as a direct comparison.
Measure how RAMS changes decisions
Share answering yes or selecting the stated option · 0–100%
Report p. 13, Figure 4. Different item bases shown explicitly. No subtraction between these percentages.
AI is prominent in the future role.
Half of coded comments about the five-year RAMS role mention AI or automation. This is a qualitative signal—not a rate of AI use.
From future interest to questions of assurance
Share of coded five-year role comments · 0–100% scale
Report pp. 18, 31. Keyword-assisted, non-exclusive coding. 2026 five-year role comments n=91.
These findings describe participating respondents, not the entire industry. Annual samples are independent. Multi-select percentages can total more than 100%. Changes are exploratory signals, not evidence that the same organisations changed over time.
Sources and interpretation
Source: PHM Technology, RAMS Industry Study 2026, September 2026. Question bases and report page references are shown with each chart. Earlier-year bases are not stated in the cited longitudinal passages.
Percentage point changes subtract the earlier percentage from the later percentage. No claim of causation, population representativeness or statistical significance is made here.
Full report
Read the complete 2026 findings.
Includes the respondent profile, industry comparisons, three-year analysis and methodological limits.
Longitudinal view · 2024–2026
What changed across three years?
Compare the same measures across annual samples. This view focuses on direction and change, rather than repeating the latest year dashboard.
Download report + trends
2026 findings · 2024–2026 trends · PDF
2024
Starting comparison
2025
Second annual sample
2026
Latest published sample
More compliance. Less design influence.
Between 2024 and 2026, compliance led perceptions rose while recognition as a critical design component fell.
Design component: −21.0 percentage points
Share of respondents selecting each perception · 0–100% scale
Report pp. 28–29. Multi-select. 2026 n=109; 2024 base not stated in the cited passage.
AI is becoming a practical challenge.
Selection of the impact of AI as an operational challenge rose in 2026. This measures perceived challenge, not AI adoption.
2024 to 2026: +11.4 percentage points
Share selecting “impact of AI” as a challenge · 0–100% scale
Report p. 31. Multi-select. 2026 n=109; earlier bases not stated in the cited passage.
Excel remains the most selected tool.
Its share declined gradually, but spreadsheets remained central to RAMS work in each annual sample.
2024 to 2026: −7.0 percentage points
Share selecting Microsoft Excel · 0–100% scale
Report p. 33. Multi-select. 2026 n=109; earlier bases not stated in the cited passage.
Strategy has barely shifted.
Documented RAMS strategy stayed close to half of respondents across the three annual samples.
2024 to 2026: +1.4 percentage points
Share reporting a documented strategy · 0–100% scale
Report pp. 13, 33. Single-select. 2026 n=109; earlier bases not stated in the cited passage.
These findings describe participating respondents, not the entire industry. Annual samples are independent. Multi-select percentages can total more than 100%. Changes are exploratory signals, not evidence that the same organisations changed over time.
Sources and interpretation
Source: PHM Technology, RAMS Industry Study 2026, September 2026. Question bases and report page references are shown with each chart. Earlier-year bases are not stated in the cited longitudinal passages.
Percentage point changes subtract the earlier percentage from the later percentage. No claim of causation, population representativeness or statistical significance is made here.
Help build the next point in the picture.
Share your experience in the 2027 study.
From the archive · Original comparative report
The 2024–2025 study.
Revisit the earlier findings on RAMS influence, team challenges and improvement priorities.
Download 2024–2025 report
01 · ORGANISATIONAL PERCEPTION
Recognition is growing.
Recognition is growing.
Understanding remains uneven.
The report describes fewer respondents seeing RAMS as outside the critical engineering path in 2025. At the same time, poor understanding and compliance-led perceptions became more common. These are different aspects of how RAMS is viewed; recognition alone does not demonstrate effective integration.
02 · DEMONSTRATING VALUE
The challenge is making
The challenge is making
RAMS influence decisions.
Data quality and demonstrating RAMS value remained prominent concerns. In 2025, greater emphasis was placed on securing a role in the critical engineering path and influencing design decisions. The report frames the challenge as connecting analyses to the decisions they should inform.
03 · TEAM CHALLENGES
Complexity, people
Complexity, people
and connected knowledge.
System complexity, skills and resource availability, system understanding, and cross-team collaboration remained recurring challenges. Rapid technology change became more prominent in 2025, adding pressure to teams already managing complex systems.
04 · IMPROVEMENT PRIORITIES
Earlier involvement.
Earlier involvement.
Stronger integration.
Respondents identified systems engineering and MBSE integration, better data, and skilled RAMS engineers as important ways to improve outcomes. The report highlights increased emphasis in 2025 on involving RAMS earlier in design. These are respondents’ priorities, not measured effects of an intervention.
05 · FUTURE EXPECTATIONS
Design and performance
Design and performance
define the ambition.
Across both years, early involvement in engineering design and improved asset performance stood out as expectations for RAMS. These responses describe what participants expected RAMS to contribute, rather than evidence that those outcomes had already been achieved.
Two survey years.
A directional comparison.
The report describes a multi-sector survey repeated with the same questions in 2024 and 2025. It includes multi-select and perception based questions. Responses may therefore sum to more than 100%.
Charts are reproduced directly from the original report. Their scales differ, so compare the axis labels as well as the bars. Exact percentages have not been estimated from bar heights. The report does not supply a respondent denominator for each chart or establish that the same people answered in both years; the findings should not be treated as population estimates or within-person change.
Source: PHM Technology, The State of RAMS Engineering: Industry Trends 2024–2025 , version 1.4, pp. 1–4. The report’s model-based recommendations are interpretations of these survey findings.
THE COMPLETE 2024–2025 STUDY
Explore the findings.
Explore the findings.
Understand the priorities.
Read the original comparative report, including all five question areas, charts and the authors’ conclusions.
- How RAMS is perceived within organisations
- Barriers to value and engineering influence
- Complexity, resources and collaboration
- Priorities for improving RAMS outcomes
- Expectations for design and asset performance
PDF · Four pages · Version 1.4