Total Economic Impact
Cost Savings And Business Benefits Enabled By Machine And Process Health
A FORRESTER TOTAL ECONOMIC IMPACT STUDY COMMISSIONED BY Augury, july 2025
Total Economic Impact
A FORRESTER TOTAL ECONOMIC IMPACT STUDY COMMISSIONED BY Augury, july 2025
In today’s competitive industrial landscape, organizations are under increasing pressure to reduce unplanned downtime, improve operational efficiency, and extend asset life, all while meeting sustainability and workforce productivity goals. This study explores how predictive maintenance and real-time operational insights can help industrial leaders meet these challenges.
Augury’s Machine Health and Process Health solutions use industrial AI to support the diagnosis of equipment issues and the optimization of production processes, enabling data-informed operational decisions. Machine Health focuses on the condition and performance of rotating equipment, using vibration and other sensor data to detect mechanical, electrical, and operational issues early and recommend precise maintenance actions. Process Health monitors process parameters such as flow, pressure, and temperature to identify inefficiencies and anomalies in production processes and provides real-time recommendations based on operational data. Together, they lay the foundation for a more resilient, efficient, and intelligent industrial operation.
Augury commissioned Forrester Consulting to conduct a Total Economic Impact™ (TEI) study and examine the potential return on investment (ROI) enterprises may realize by deploying Machine Health and Process Health.1 The purpose of this study is to provide readers with a framework to evaluate the potential financial impact of Machine Health and Process Health on their organizations.
To better understand the benefits, costs, and risks associated with this investment, Forrester interviewed four decision-makers with experience using Machine Health and Process Health. For the purposes of this study, Forrester aggregated the experiences of the interviewees and combined the results into a single composite organization, which is a manufacturing organization based in the US with annual revenue of $20 billion.
Interviewees said that prior to using Machine Health and Process Health, their organizations operated under tight maintenance budgets and relied heavily on manual, time-consuming maintenance practices such as planned maintenance walks. However, prior attempts to improve maintenance yielded limited success, leaving them with persistent issues like unplanned downtime, inefficient use of personnel, and inability to scale throughput due to process complexity. These limitations led to reactive maintenance approaches, underutilized production capacity, and growing concerns over sustainability and knowledge loss within the workforce.
After the investment in Machine Health and Process Health, the interviewees reported a shift from reactive maintenance to a proactive, data-driven approach that enabled timely monitoring, improved decision-making, and greater operational efficiency. Key results from the investment include significant reductions in unplanned downtime and maintenance costs, increased production capacity and throughput, enhanced employee safety, productivity and experience, and measurable progress toward sustainability goals through energy savings and reduced waste.
Quantified benefits. Three-year, risk-adjusted present value (PV) quantified benefits for the composite organization include:
Avoiding revenue loss by reducing unplanned downtime. By leveraging Machine Health monitoring to proactively address equipment issues, the composite organization significantly reduces unplanned downtime across its manufacturing sites. Each site avoids an average of 95 hours of unplanned downtime, minimizing disruptions to operations and preventing revenue loss. Over three years and a total of 50 sites, the reduced unplanned downtime hours are worth $16.8 million to the composite organization.
Reducing maintenance spend by 15%. Continuous asset monitoring enables the composite organization to shift from reactive to proactive maintenance, optimizing resource allocation and reducing unnecessary interventions. This results in a 15% decrease in maintenance costs per asset. Over three years and a total of 2,500 assets, the reduced maintenance spend amounts to $1.5 million in savings for the composite organization.
Energy savings through 5% natural gas reduction. With Process Health, the composite organization improves operational efficiency by optimizing natural gas consumption, achieving a 5% annual reduction. This not only lowers energy costs but also supports sustainability initiatives by reducing CO2 emissions. Over three years the reduced gas consumption amounts to $870,000 in savings for the composite organization.
Profit gains from a 5% incremental throughput. Process Health insights help the composite organization identify and address production bottlenecks and inefficiencies, enabling a 5% increase in throughput. This improvement enhances overall productivity and profitability. Over three years and a total of five lines, the increased throughput is worth $7.5 million to the composite organization.
Unquantified benefits. Benefits that provide value for the composite organization but are not quantified for this study include:
Upskilled workforce and improved employee productivity. Interviewees reported that Augury’s Machine Health and Process Health solutions significantly enhanced their organizations’ workforce productivity and morale. By enabling timely alerts and diagnostics, technicians could prioritize tasks more effectively, reduce time spent on manual inspections, and shift from reactive to predictive maintenance. This led to more structured schedules, fewer emergency interventions, and improved operational efficiency.
Improved employee experience. Beyond productivity, Augury contributed to better employee experience at interviewees’ organizations. Technicians gained confidence and peace of mind by knowing they could rely on the system’s insights. The platform also fostered collaboration between sites, with internal user communities emerging to share best practices and success stories. Additionally, Augury helped preserve and transfer operational knowledge by capturing diagnostic insights in a centralized platform, enabling consistent decision-making across teams.
Improved sustainability. Augury’s Machine Health and Process Health solutions may contribute meaningfully to organizations’ sustainability goals. By identifying inefficiencies in equipment and production processes, energy consumption can be reduced, the risk of producing defective products can be minimized, and material waste can be lowered.
Improved safety. Deploying Augury on hard-to-access machines may reduce the need for manual inspections, limiting exposure to potentially hazardous environments. By preventing unexpected equipment failures, the solution may also help create a safer workplace for maintenance personnel.
Costs. Three-year, risk-adjusted PV costs for the composite organization include:
Machine Health licensing fees total $4.8 million over three years. These fees include annual license costs, cellular connectivity expenses for sites without wireless access, and an enterprise fee applied in Years 2 and 3.
Machine Health implementation costs of $815,000. Implementation involves limited internal resources to oversee sensor installation on monitored machines, along with a one-time installation fee paid to Augury.
Ongoing management of Machine Health and Process Health. A small internal team is responsible for managing Augury’s solution and serving as the primary point of contact for on-site users. Labor costs for this ongoing support total $152,000 over three years.
Process Health license fees and implementation costs total $705,000. This includes both licensing and initial setup costs. Implementation of Process Health requires collaboration between Augury and internal teams to collect data and design the process model.
The financial analysis based on the interviews found that a composite organization experiences benefits of $26.6 million over three years versus costs of $6.5 million, adding up to a net present value (NPV) of $20.1 million and an ROI of 310%.
Return on investment (ROI)
Benefits PV
Net present value (NPV)
Payback
“What I really like about the system is that as we make improvements, the system learns. And so we’re always stepping it up a little further. So the system tells you where we are today and suggests where we can squeeze a little bit more out, and this will help us capture it and then maintain it.”
CEO, industrial production
| Role | Industry | Region | Augury Product | Deployment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Corporate reliability manager | Manufacturing (forest products) | US | Machine Health | 16 sites |
| Head of maintenance and service | Refinery and petrochemicals | Israel | Machine Health | 1 large site |
| Technology innovation scale-up manager | Food and beverage | US HQ, global operations | Machine Health | 90 sites |
| CEO | Industrial production | US | Process Health | 2 lines |
Prior to adopting Augury, interviewees’ organizations relied on manual inspections, reactive maintenance, and operator intuition to manage equipment and process performance. These traditional methods often lacked the precision, scalability, and timely responsiveness needed to meet modern operational demands.
Interviewees noted how their organizations struggled with common challenges, including:
Frequent unplanned downtime and reactive maintenance. Without predictive insights, maintenance teams were often forced to operate in a run-to-failure mode. This reactive approach increased the risk of costly breakdowns and production delays and increased pressure on already constrained maintenance resources.
Lack of timely, actionable insights. Traditional maintenance walks and manual monitoring provided only point-in-time data, limiting visibility into emerging issues. This made it difficult to detect early signs of failure or inefficiency and hindered proactive decision-making.
Difficulty optimizing and sustaining complex processes. Many industrial processes involved dynamic variables, such as fluctuating input quality, environmental conditions, and equipment wear, that were too complex for granular manual control. This led to conservative operating behavior, reduced throughput, and missed opportunities to optimize performance. Even when improvements were achieved, organizations struggled to sustain them over time.
Workforce and knowledge retention challenges. Organizations faced difficulties onboarding new operators and retaining institutional knowledge, particularly in environments with high turnover or limited technical expertise. In many cases, critical process knowledge resided with a few experienced individuals, making operations vulnerable to disruptions when those individuals were unavailable or left the organization.
The interviewees searched for a solution that could:
Improve asset uptime by providing timely asset monitoring, moving away from reactive maintenance practices and toward predictive maintenance.
Scale to multiple assets and sites.
Based on the interviews, Forrester constructed a TEI framework, a composite organization, and an ROI analysis that illustrates the areas financially affected. The composite organization is representative of the interviewees’ organizations, and it is used to present the aggregate financial analysis in the next section. The composite organization has the following characteristics:
Description of composite. The composite organization is a large US-based manufacturer with annual revenue of $20 billion. It operates a growing network of production sites and lines with a focus on optimizing operational efficiency and minimizing unplanned downtime. The organization represents a typical large-scale industrial enterprise seeking to modernize its maintenance and operations strategy.
Deployment characteristics. The composite organization begins using both Machine Health and Process Health in Year 1. The initial rollout of Machine Health covers five sites with 50 assets each, and scales to 50 sites with 50 assets each by Year 3. Process Health is rolled out to one production line in Year 1, scaling to three lines in Year 2 and five lines in Year 3.
$20 billion revenue
Manufacturing organization
Operates in the US
2,500 assets equipped with Machine Health and five lines equipped with Process Health by Year 3
| Ref. | Benefit | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | Total | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Atr | Cost savings from reduced unplanned downtime (Machine Health) | $1,539,000 | $4,617,000 | $15,390,000 | $21,546,000 | $16,777,528 |
| Btr | Reduced maintenance spend (Machine Health) | $135,000 | $405,000 | $1,350,000 | $1,890,000 | $1,471,713 |
| Ctr | Energy savings (Process Health) | $350,000 | $350,000 | $350,000 | $1,050,000 | $870,398 |
| Dtr | Profit from increased throughput (Process Health) | $1,050,000 | $3,150,000 | $5,250,000 | $9,450,000 | $7,502,254 |
| Total benefits (risk-adjusted) | $3,074,000 | $8,522,000 | $22,340,000 | $33,936,000 | $26,621,893 |
Evidence and data. Interviewees across industries consistently reported that Augury’s Machine Health solution significantly reduced unplanned downtime by enabling earlier detection of mechanical issues and more proactive maintenance. Key insights include:
Across all organizations, interviewees emphasized that Augury’s continuous monitoring and diagnostic insights helped shift maintenance strategies from reactive to predictive, enabling better planning, fewer disruptions, and improved operational continuity.
An interviewee at a global food and beverage manufacturer shared that over a three-year deployment across multiple sites, the solution helped avoid approximately 10,000 hours of unplanned downtime, resulting in the recovery of over 25 million pounds of product that would have otherwise been lost.
One interviewee reported that within 12 to 18 months of implementation, one of their sites avoided over 220 hours of downtime, equating to more than $1 million in cost avoidance. This interviewee noted, “Augury has really helped with uptime, with catching machine failure well before it becomes an issue.”
A maintenance and service leader at a large industrial refinery and petrochemicals conglomerate emphasized that Augury’s predictive alerts allowed teams to intervene before failures occurred, reducing emergency interventions and improving equipment availability.
Modeling and assumptions. Based on the interviews, Forrester assumes the following about the composite organization:
Using Augury’s Machine Health solution, each site avoids 95 hours of unplanned downtime.
Based on the organization’s annual revenue, the organization experiences $30,000 of lost revenue for each hour of unplanned downtime.
The operating margin is 12%.
The organization has 50 assets for each site using Machine Health, with rollout starting at five sites in Year 1, expanding to 15 sites in Year 2 and 50 sites in Year 3.
Risks. The reduction in unplanned downtime may vary depending on the following:
The total hours of unplanned downtime may differ depending on the industry as well as the maturity of operations.
Results. To account for these risks, Forrester adjusted this benefit downward by 10%, yielding a three-year, risk-adjusted total PV (discounted at 10%) of $16.8 million.
Costs saved from reducing unplanned downtime
| Ref. | Metric | Source | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | Unplanned downtime hours avoided (per site) | Interviews | 95 | 95 | 95 | |
| A2 | Lost revenue per hour of downtime (per site) | Composite | $30,000 | $30,000 | $30,000 | |
| A3 | Operating margin | Research data | 12% | 12% | 12% | |
| A4 | Total sites | Composite | 5 | 15 | 50 | |
| At | Cost savings from reduced unplanned downtime (Machine Health) | A1*A2*A3*A4 | $1,710,000 | $5,130,000 | $17,100,000 | |
| Risk adjustment | ↓10% | |||||
| Atr | Cost savings from reduced unplanned downtime (Machine Health) (risk-adjusted) | $1,539,000 | $4,617,000 | $15,390,000 | ||
| Three-year total: $21,546,000 | Three-year present value: $16,777,528 | |||||
Evidence and data. Interviewees reported that Augury’s Machine Health solution enabled their organizations to reduce maintenance costs by shifting from reactive to predictive maintenance strategies. Key insights include:
Interviewees highlighted that Augury’s continuous monitoring allowed teams to detect early signs of wear or failure, enabling timely interventions that prevented more costly repairs and minimized labor hours.
Interviewees shared that they experienced reductions in maintenance spend ranging from 5% to 30%, depending on asset type and deployment maturity. They attributed these savings to fewer breakdowns, more efficient scheduling, and a reduction in more expensive emergency repairs.
An interviewee from a global food and beverage manufacturer emphasized that Augury’s insights helped maintenance teams focus their efforts on the most critical assets, reducing unnecessary inspections and extending the life of components.
Modeling and assumptions. Based on the interviews, Forrester assumes the following about the composite organization:
The average annual maintenance cost per asset is $4,000.
The composite organization reduces maintenance spend by 15% per asset due to earlier detection of issues, fewer emergency repairs, and more efficient maintenance scheduling.
The composite organization uses Augury’s Machine Health solution to monitor 250 assets in Year 1, scaling to 750 in Year 2 and 2,500 in Year 3.
Risks. The reduction in maintenance spend may vary depending on the following:
The baseline maintenance cost per asset may differ across industries and asset types.
Organizations with already mature predictive maintenance programs may see smaller incremental improvements.
Results. To account for these risks, Forrester adjusted this benefit downward by 10%, yielding a three-year, risk-adjusted total PV (discounted at 10%) of $1.5 million.
Reduced maintenance spend per asset
| Ref. | Metric | Source | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B1 | Maintenance spend (per asset) | Interviews | $4,000 | $4,000 | $4,000 | |
| B2 | Reduced maintenance spend (per asset) | Interviews | 15% | 15% | 15% | |
| B3 | Total assets | Composite | 250 | 750 | 2,500 | |
| Bt | Reduced maintenance spend (Machine Health) | B1*B2*B3 | $150,000 | $450,000 | $1,500,000 | |
| Risk adjustment | ↓10% | |||||
| Btr | Reduced maintenance spend (Machine Health) (risk-adjusted) | $135,000 | $405,000 | $1,350,000 | ||
| Three-year total: $1,890,000 | Three-year present value: $1,471,713 | |||||
Evidence and data. Interviewees reported that Augury’s Process Health solution enabled more precise control of energy-intensive operations, particularly in environments where thermal processes are central to production. Natural gas is a key energy source in many industrial operations, particularly for heating and thermal processes. Key insights include:
An interviewee from an industrial production company reported that prior to implementing Process Health, operators often ran equipment conservatively, over-drying materials or running at higher-than-necessary temperatures, to avoid quality issues. This led to excessive energy consumption. With Augury’s solution, the organization was able to optimize dryer performance and reduce gas usage without compromising output.
The same interviewee estimated a 5% reduction in natural gas consumption, driven by improved control over drying temperatures and the ability to switch between production modes more efficiently, noting, “We’re no longer overheating equipment just to be safe; we know exactly how it’s performing.”
Interviewees using Machine Health also noted qualitative benefits that contributed to improvements in energy efficiency. One interviewee reported that the predictive insights from Augury enabled early detection of inefficient motor performance, reducing unnecessary energy use. Another interviewee highlighted that real-time visibility into equipment health allowed for better planning of maintenance activities, minimizing energy-intensive emergency interventions and ensuring continuous, optimized equipment performance.
Modeling and assumptions. Based on the interviews, Forrester assumes the following about the composite organization:
The composite organization consumes 2.5 million MCF (thousand cubic feet) of natural gas annually across its operations.
The average cost of natural gas in the US is $4 per MCF.
With Augury’s Process Health solution, the organization reduces gas consumption by 5% annually through improved process control.
Risks. The energy savings may vary depending on the following:
The proportion of energy-intensive processes within the organization’s operations.
The baseline efficiency of existing process controls prior to implementing Augury.
The geography of the organization and the associated natural gas (or other energy source) prices in that region.
Results. To account for these risks, Forrester adjusted this benefit downward by 30%, yielding a three-year, risk-adjusted total PV (discounted at 10%) of $870,398.
| Ref. | Metric | Source | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C1 | Cost of natural gas (per MCF) | Assumption | $4 | $4 | $4 | |
| C2 | Amount of natural gas used (MCF) | Interviews | 2,500,000 | 2,500,000 | 2,500,000 | |
| C3 | Reduction of gas | Interviews | 5% | 5% | 5% | |
| Ct | Energy savings (Process Health) | C1*C2*C3 | $500,000 | $500,000 | $500,000 | |
| Risk adjustment | ↓30% | |||||
| Ctr | Energy savings (Process Health) (risk-adjusted) | $350,000 | $350,000 | $350,000 | ||
| Three-year total: $1,050,000 | Three-year present value: $870,398 | |||||
Evidence and data. Interviewees described how Augury’s Process Health solution enabled more consistent and optimized production, particularly in high-throughput environments where even small efficiency gains translate into significant financial impact. Key insights include:
An interviewee from a manufacturing organization reported that Augury helped increase throughput by approximately 5% on production lines that were already operating at full capacity. The interviewee attributed this to improved process stability, reduced variability, and faster transitions between production modes. “We’re able to run more consistently and switch between products with less downtime,” the interviewee noted.
The same interviewee emphasized that these gains were particularly valuable during periods of high demand when every additional unit produced translated directly into revenue.
Interviewees from other industries noted that Augury’s predictive capabilities also helped reduce process interruptions and maintain optimal operating conditions, which indirectly supported higher output and better asset utilization.
Modeling and assumptions. Based on the interviews, Forrester assumes the following about the composite organization:
The composite organization generates $20 billion in annual revenue, with 2.5% of that revenue tied to a single production line.
The operating margin is 12%.
The organization operates one line with Augury’s Process Health solution in Year 1, scaling to three in Year 2 and five in Year 3.
Throughput on each line equipped with Augury’s Process Health solution increases by 5% annually, and 50% of this throughput increase is attributed to Augury.
Risks. The increase in throughput may vary depending on the following:
The extent to which production lines are already optimized or constrained by other bottlenecks.
The organization’s ability to act on Augury’s recommendations in real time.
External factors such as supply chain limitations or labor availability that may limit the ability to capitalize on increased throughput.
Results. To account for these risks, Forrester adjusted this benefit downward by 30%, yielding a three-year, risk-adjusted total PV (discounted at 10%) of $7.5 million.
Throughput increase per year on each production line
“We had already made big improvements, but we were hitting a ceiling; we couldn’t control the system tightly enough to reach theoretical throughput. The process is incredibly complex, with frequent shifts in demand and operating conditions. With Augury’s Process Health, we can now run at higher throughput when sold out, lower cost when not, and switch between modes on the fly.”
CEO, industrial production
| Ref. | Metric | Source | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D1 | Annual revenue | Composite | $20,000,000,000 | $20,000,000,000 | $20,000,000,000 | |
| D2 | Operating margin | Research data | 12% | 12% | 12% | |
| D3 | Percentage of revenue coming from production line | Assumption | 2.5% | 2.5% | 2.5% | |
| D4 | Lines equipped with Process Health | Composite | 1 | 3 | 5 | |
| D5 | Operating profit | D1*D2*D3*D4 | $60,000,000 | $180,000,000 | $300,000,000 | |
| D6 | Increase in throughput | Interviews | 5% | 5% | 5% | |
| D7 | Percentage attributed to Augury | Assumption | 50% | 50% | 50% | |
| Dt | Profit from increased throughput (Process Health) | D5*D6*D7 | $1,500,000 | $4,500,000 | $7,500,000 | |
| Risk adjustment | ↓30% | |||||
| Dtr | Profit from increased throughput (Process Health) (risk-adjusted) | $1,050,000 | $3,150,000 | $5,250,000 | ||
| Three-year total: $9,450,000 | Three-year present value: $7,502,254 | |||||
Interviewees mentioned the following additional benefits that their organizations experienced but were not able to quantify:
Upskilled workforce and improved employee productivity. Interviewees across industries consistently reported that Augury’s Machine Health and Process Health solutions helped elevate the professionalism, confidence, and effectiveness of their maintenance teams. With access to timely alerts and diagnostics, technicians were able to prioritize their work more effectively, reduce time spent on manual inspections, and focus on the most critical issues. One interviewee described Augury “like a screwdriver” — a tool that technicians rely on daily to guide their actions.
Interviewees also noted that Augury enabled better maintenance scheduling, allowing teams to shift from reactive to predictive workflows. Instead of responding to unexpected breakdowns, technicians could plan interventions in advance, reducing stress and improving operational efficiency. This shift contributed to a more structured and proactive work environment, where employees knew what to expect and could allocate their time more strategically.
Several interviewees emphasized the time savings gained from being able to trust Augury’s alerts. Rather than spending time diagnosing issues manually or performing routine checks on healthy equipment, teams could act with confidence based on system insights. This not only improved productivity but also reduced unnecessary labor and overtime.
Improved employee experience. The employee experience also improved, with interviewees noting a stronger sense of ownership, pride, and peace of mind. Knowing that they had a reliable system monitoring equipment health gave technicians greater confidence in their decisions and reduced the pressure of having to “catch everything” themselves. Additionally, interviewees observed the emergence of internal user communities across different sites, where technicians and reliability leaders shared learnings, best practices, and success stories related to Augury. One interviewee also highlighted that Augury helped preserve and transfer operational knowledge by digitizing machine health data and embedding predictive maintenance insights into daily workflows, which ensured that critical know-how is no longer dependent on individual experience. This shift enabled consistent decision-making regardless of who was on shift, enhancing long-term operational resilience and sustainability.
Sustainability improvements. Interviewees reported that Augury’s solutions contributed to sustainability goals by reducing waste and emissions. By identifying inefficiencies early, teams could avoid overprocessing, reduce energy consumption, and minimize the production of defective goods. One interviewee emphasized that Augury helped their organization “run cooler and more consistently,” directly supporting environmental objectives. Another interviewee noted that early alerts helped prevent hydraulic fluid leaks, which could otherwise have significant environmental consequences.
Improved safety of working environment. Interviewees reported that Augury reduced the need for manual inspections in hard-to-reach or hazardous areas, lowering the risk of injury. They also noted that by preventing unexpected equipment failures, the solution helped create a safer working environment for maintenance personnel and reduced the urgency of emergency interventions.
The value of flexibility is unique to each customer. There are multiple scenarios in which a customer might implement Machine Health and Process Health and later realize additional uses and business opportunities, including:
Combining Machine Health and Process Health. One interviewee described the future potential of combining Machine Health and Process Health to create a more intelligent, adaptive, and cost-efficient production environment. While both solutions independently provide value, the interviewee emphasized that the true optimization opportunity lies in their integration.
The interviewee envisioned combining Machine Health and Process Health to create a system that not only detects mechanical issues like a failing bearing but also understands the broader process context, for example, whether the system is running at the optimal point for balancing throughput, cost, and asset longevity. Today, organizations often lack visibility into how production decisions (e.g., running faster or slower, switching between lines) impact maintenance costs or component life. With integrated insights, teams could make data-driven trade-offs, such as accepting faster wear on a component during high-demand periods in exchange for increased output.
The interviewee also noted that combining Machine Health and Process Health could help answer complex operational questions, such as whether to run one line at full speed or multiple lines at lower capacity when demand is low. These decisions can significantly affect profitability, especially in industries where margins are tight and operational flexibility is critical. Ultimately, the interviewee saw this convergence as a path toward a “smart operational system,” one that continuously learns, adapts, and guides teams toward optimal performance across cost, reliability, and throughput.
Machine replacement decision support. One interviewee noted that Augury’s insights have the potential to inform long-term capital planning by identifying persistently underperforming assets or “bad actors.” By tracking how often a machine enters a failure state, even after repeated repairs, teams can build a data-driven case for replacement. In one example, a machine repeatedly returned to acceptable condition after intervention, only to quickly degrade again. Over time, this pattern helped the organization recognize that the asset was no longer viable, positioning Augury as a valuable input for machine replacement decisions.
Application in automated warehouse operations. Another interviewee shared that Augury is beginning to be applied in automated warehouse environments, where the same value proposition of avoiding unplanned downtime is critical. Although the operational context differs from manufacturing, the underlying need is the same: ensuring that automated systems, which are directly tied to customer fulfillment, remain operational. The interviewee emphasized that the same user groups responsible for uptime in production are now leveraging Augury to protect warehouse automation, highlighting the solution’s cross-functional applicability.
Flexibility would also be quantified when evaluated as part of a specific project (described in more detail in Total Economic Impact Approach).
| Ref. | Cost | Initial | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | Total | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Etr | Machine Health license fees | $0 | $406,875 | $1,338,750 | $4,462,500 | $6,208,125 | $4,829,034 |
| Ftr | Implementation costs (Machine Health) | $0 | $74,800 | $224,400 | $748,000 | $1,047,200 | $815,438 |
| Gtr | Ongoing management (Machine Health and Process Health) | $0 | $60,984 | $60,984 | $60,984 | $182,952 | $151,658 |
| Htr | Process Health fees and implementation costs | $33,600 | $168,000 | $321,600 | $336,000 | $859,200 | $704,554 |
| Total costs (risk-adjusted) | $33,600 | $710,659 | $1,945,734 | $5,607,484 | $8,297,477 | $6,500,684 |
Evidence and data. Interviewees shared that their organizations incurred external costs related to the implementation and ongoing use of Augury’s Machine Health solution. These costs fell into three primary categories.
Interviewees reported paying annual subscription fees for Augury’s Machine Health platform, which scaled with the number of monitored assets and sites.
They also noted that their organization paid an additional enterprise-level fee of 10% after the first year of implementation.
Some interviewees reported paying yearly cellular connectivity costs when they did not have wireless connections on site to enable real-time data transmission from the sensors to the Augury platform.
Modeling and assumptions. Based on the interviews, Forrester assumes the following about the composite organization:
The organization pays $375,000 in license fees in Year 1, increasing to $1.125 million in Year 2 and $3.75 million in Year 3.
An enterprise support fee of 10% is applied to the license cost each year, starting in Year 2.
Cellular connectivity costs are $12,500, $37,500, and $125,000 in Years 1, 2 and 3, respectively.
Risks. Forrester recognizes that these results may not be representative of all experiences. The impact of this cost will vary depending on:
The number of assets and sites monitored.
The organization’s existing connectivity infrastructure and cellular data needs.
Results. To account for these risks, Forrester adjusted this cost upward by 5%, yielding a three-year, risk-adjusted total PV (discounted at 10%) of $4.8 million.
| Ref. | Metric | Source | Initial | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| E1 | License fees (yearly) | Composite | $375,000 | $1,125,000 | $3,750,000 | |
| E2 | Enterprise fee | Interviews | 10% | 10% | ||
| E3 | Cellular connectivity costs | Interviews | $12,500 | $37,500 | $125,000 | |
| Et | Machine Health license fees | E1+(E1*E2)+E3 | $387,500 | $1,275,000 | $4,250,000 | |
| Risk adjustment | ↑5% | |||||
| Etr | Machine Health license fees (risk-adjusted) | $0 | $406,875 | $1,338,750 | $4,462,500 | |
| Three-year total: $6,208,125 | Three-year present value: $4,829,034 | |||||
Evidence and data. Interviewees shared that their organizations incurred internal and external costs during the initial implementation of Augury’s Machine Health solution. These costs included both labor time for internal staff and external installation services provided by Augury.
Interviewees reported that implementation at each site typically involved three employees such as maintenance leads, reliability engineers, or plant managers, who spent approximately a total of 24 hours each coordinating with Augury’s team and monitoring installation.
In addition to internal labor, interviewees noted that their organizations paid Augury a one-time installation fee per site, which scaled with the number of sites deployed.
Modeling and assumptions. Based on the interviews, Forrester assumes the following about the composite organization:
Each site requires three employees to support implementation, each spending 24 hours at an average fully loaded hourly rate of $50.
The organization deploys the solution at five sites in Year 1, 15 sites in Year 2, and 50 sites in Year 3.
Augury charges a one-time installation fee of $10,000 per site, totaling $50,000, $150,000, and $500,000 in Years 1, 2, and 3, respectively.
Risks. Forrester recognizes that these results may not be representative of all experiences. The impact of this cost will vary depending on:
The number of sites deployed and the complexity of each site’s infrastructure.
The hourly employee rate.
Results. To account for these risks, Forrester adjusted this cost upward by 10%, yielding a three-year, risk-adjusted total PV (discounted at 10%) of $815,000.
| Ref. | Metric | Source | Initial | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F1 | Total employees (per site) | Interviews | 3 | 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| F2 | Hourly rate per employee | Composite | $50 | $50 | $50 | ||||||||
| F3 | Time spent monitoring implementation (hours) | Interviews | 24 | 24 | 24 | ||||||||
| F4 | Total sites | Composite | 5 | 15 | 50 | ||||||||
| F5 | Augury installation fees | Composite | $50,000 | $150,000 | $500,000 | ||||||||
| Ft | Implementation costs (Machine Health) | (F1*F2*F3*F4)+F5 | $0 | $68,000 | $204,000 | $680,000 | |||||||
| Risk adjustment | ↑10% | ||||||||||||
| Ftr | Implementation costs (Machine Health) (risk-adjusted) | $0 | $74,800 | $224,400 | $748,000 | ||||||||
| Three-year total: $1,047,200 | Three-year present value: $815,438 | ||||||||||||
Evidence and data. Interviewees shared that their organizations incurred internal labor costs related to the ongoing management of Augury’s Machine Health and Process Health solutions. These costs were primarily associated with centralized teams responsible for program oversight, vendor coordination, and performance monitoring.
Interviewees noted that a small number of employees within a center-of-excellence function were responsible for managing the Augury program across sites. These individuals typically spent a portion of their time supporting adoption and facilitating communication between site-level users and Augury’s support team.
The time commitment was generally described as part-time, with most interviewees estimating that each employee dedicated approximately 20% of their time to Augury-related activities.
Modeling and assumptions. Based on the interviews, Forrester assumes the following about the composite organization:
Three employees are responsible for ongoing management of the Augury program across all sites.
Each employee spends 20% of their time annually on Augury-related activities.
The average fully burdened annual salary for these employees is $92,400.
Risks. Forrester recognizes that these results may not be representative of all experiences. The impact of this cost will vary depending on:
The size and complexity of the deployment.
The organization’s internal governance structure and resource availability.
The level of engagement required to support adoption and performance optimization.
Results. To account for these risks, Forrester adjusted this cost upward by 10%, yielding a three-year, risk-adjusted total PV (discounted at 10%) of $152,000.
| Ref. | Metric | Source | Initial | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| G1 | Total center-of-excellence employees | Interviews | 3 | 3 | 3 | |
| G2 | Fully burdened annual salary for a center-of-excellence employee | Composite | $92,400 | $92,400 | $92,400 | |
| G3 | Time spent on Augury | Interviews | 20% | 20% | 20% | |
| Gt | Ongoing management (Machine Health and Process Health) | G1*G2*G3 | $0 | $55,440 | $55,440 | $55,440 |
| Risk adjustment | ↑10% | |||||
| Gtr | Ongoing management (Machine Health and Process Health) (risk-adjusted) | $0 | $60,984 | $60,984 | $60,984 | |
| Three-year total: $182,952 | Three-year present value: $151,658 | |||||
Evidence and data. Interviewees shared that their organizations incurred both licensing and implementation costs related to the deployment of Augury’s Process Health solution. These costs included annual subscription fees as well as internal labor required to support implementation and training.
Interviewees reported paying annual license fees for Augury’s Process Health platform, which scaled with the number of production lines monitored.
In addition to licensing, interviewees noted that internal teams were involved in the implementation process. This included time spent by engineers and operators to support model development, validate recommendations, and integrate the solution into daily operations.
Modeling and assumptions. Based on the interviews, Forrester assumes the following about the composite organization:
The organization pays $56,000 in license fees in Year 1, increasing to $168,000 in Year 2 and $280,000 in Year 3 as the number of monitored lines grows.
Implementation happens in advance of the rollout and requires four employees per line at an average hourly rate of $50, each contributing 140 hours for the initial setup and Year 1 and 100 hours in Year 2 as the process becomes more established.
The organization deploys Process Health on one line in Year 1, three lines in Year 2, and five lines in Year 3.
Risks. Forrester recognizes that these results may not be representative of all experiences. The impact of this cost will vary depending on:
The number of production lines and facilities where Process Health is deployed.
The complexity of the production environment and the level of customization required.
The organization’s internal capacity to support implementation and training.
Results. To account for these risks, Forrester adjusted this cost upward by 20%, yielding a three-year, risk-adjusted total PV (discounted at 10%) of $705,000.
| Ref. | Metric | Source | Initial | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1 | Average annual license fees (yearly) | Interviews | $56,000 | $168,000 | $280,000 | |
| H2 | Total employees | Interviews | 4 | 4 | 4 | |
| H3 | Average hourly rate per employee | Composite | $50 | $50 | $50 | |
| H4 | Time spent on implementation (hours) | Interviews | 140 | 140 | 100 | |
| H5 | Total lines | Composite | 1 | 3 | 5 | |
| H6 | Subtotal: Implementation costs, Process Health | H2*H3*H4*H5 | $28,000 | $84,000 | $100,000 | |
| Ht | Process Health fees and implementation costs | H1+H6 | $28,000 | $140,000 | $268,000 | $280,000 |
| Risk adjustment | ↑20% | |||||
| Htr | Process Health fees and implementation costs (risk-adjusted) | $33,600 | $168,000 | $321,600 | $336,000 | |
| Three-year total: $859,200 | Three-year present value: $704,554 | |||||
| Initial | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | Total | Present Value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total costs | ($33,600) | ($710,659) | ($1,945,734) | ($5,607,484) | ($8,297,477) | ($6,500,684) |
| Total benefits | $0 | $3,074,000 | $8,522,000 | $22,340,000 | $33,936,000 | $26,621,893 |
| Net benefits | ($33,600) | $2,363,341 | $6,576,266 | $16,732,516 | $25,638,523 | $20,121,209 |
| ROI | 310% | |||||
| Payback | <6 months |
The financial results calculated in the Benefits and Costs sections can be used to determine the ROI, NPV, and payback period for the composite organization’s investment. Forrester assumes a yearly discount rate of 10% for this analysis.
These risk-adjusted ROI, NPV, and payback period values are determined by applying risk-adjustment factors to the unadjusted results in each Benefit and Cost section.
The initial investment column contains costs incurred at “time 0” or at the beginning of Year 1 that are not discounted. All other cash flows are discounted using the discount rate at the end of the year. PV calculations are calculated for each total cost and benefit estimate. NPV calculations in the summary tables are the sum of the initial investment and the discounted cash flows in each year. Sums and present value calculations of the Total Benefits, Total Costs, and Cash Flow tables may not exactly add up, as some rounding may occur.
From the information provided in the interviews, Forrester constructed a Total Economic Impact™ framework for those organizations considering an investment in Machine Health and Process Health.
The objective of the framework is to identify the cost, benefit, flexibility, and risk factors that affect the investment decision. Forrester took a multistep approach to evaluate the impact that Machine Health and Process Health can have on an organization.
Interviewed Augury stakeholders and Forrester analysts to gather data relative to Machine Health and Process Health.
Interviewed four decision-makers at organizations using Machine Health and Process Health to obtain data about costs, benefits, and risks.
Designed a composite organization based on characteristics of the interviewees’ organizations.
Constructed a financial model representative of the interviews using the TEI methodology and risk-adjusted the financial model based on issues and concerns of the interviewees.
Employed four fundamental elements of TEI in modeling the investment impact: benefits, costs, flexibility, and risks. Given the increasing sophistication of ROI analyses related to IT investments, Forrester’s TEI methodology provides a complete picture of the total economic impact of purchase decisions. Please see Appendix A for additional information on the TEI methodology.
Benefits represent the value the solution delivers to the business. The TEI methodology places equal weight on the measure of benefits and costs, allowing for a full examination of the solution’s effect on the entire organization.
Costs comprise all expenses necessary to deliver the proposed value, or benefits, of the solution. The methodology captures implementation and ongoing costs associated with the solution.
Flexibility represents the strategic value that can be obtained for some future additional investment building on top of the initial investment already made. The ability to capture that benefit has a PV that can be estimated.
Risks measure the uncertainty of benefit and cost estimates given: 1) the likelihood that estimates will meet original projections and 2) the likelihood that estimates will be tracked over time. TEI risk factors are based on “triangular distribution.”
The present or current value of (discounted) cost and benefit estimates given at an interest rate (the discount rate). The PV of costs and benefits feed into the total NPV of cash flows.
The present or current value of (discounted) future net cash flows given an interest rate (the discount rate). A positive project NPV normally indicates that the investment should be made unless other projects have higher NPVs.
A project’s expected return in percentage terms. ROI is calculated by dividing net benefits (benefits less costs) by costs.
The interest rate used in cash flow analysis to take into account the time value of money. Organizations typically use discount rates between 8% and 16%.
The breakeven point for an investment. This is the point in time at which net benefits (benefits minus costs) equal initial investment or cost.
Total Economic Impact is a methodology developed by Forrester Research that enhances a company’s technology decision-making processes and assists solution providers in communicating their value proposition to clients. The TEI methodology helps companies demonstrate, justify, and realize the tangible value of business and technology initiatives to both senior management and other key stakeholders.
1 Total Economic Impact is a methodology developed by Forrester Research that enhances a company’s technology decision-making processes and assists solution providers in communicating their value proposition to clients. The TEI methodology helps companies demonstrate, justify, and realize the tangible value of business and technology initiatives to both senior management and other key stakeholders.
Readers should be aware of the following:
This study is commissioned by Augury and delivered by Forrester Consulting. It is not meant to be used as a competitive analysis.
Forrester makes no assumptions as to the potential ROI that other organizations will receive. Forrester strongly advises that readers use their own estimates within the framework provided in the study to determine the appropriateness of an investment in Machine Health and Process Health. For any interactive functionality, the intent is for the questions to solicit inputs specific to a prospect’s business. Forrester believes that this analysis is representative of what companies may achieve with Machine Health and Process Health based on the inputs provided and any assumptions made. Forrester does not endorse Augury or its offerings. Although great care has been taken to ensure the accuracy and completeness of this model, Augury and Forrester Research are unable to accept any legal responsibility for any actions taken on the basis of the information contained herein. The interactive tool is provided ‘AS IS,’ and Forrester and Augury make no warranties of any kind.
Augury reviewed and provided feedback to Forrester, but Forrester maintains editorial control over the study and its findings and does not accept changes to the study that contradict Forrester’s findings or obscure the meaning of the study.
Augury provided the customer names for the interviews but did not participate in the interviews.
Antonie Bassi
July 2025
https://mainstayadvisor.com/go/mainstay/gdpr/policy.html