The logic of run‑to‑failure maintenance is simple and
straightforward. When a machine breaks down … fix it. This "If it ain't
broke, don't fix it" method of maintaining building machinery has been a
major part of building maintenance operations since the first building
was built and on the surface sounds reasonable. A building using run‑to‑failure
maintenance does not spend any money on maintenance until a machine or system
fails to operate. Run‑to‑failure is a reactive management technique that waits
for machine or equipment failure before any maintenance action is taken. It is also the most expensive
method of maintenance management.
However, it should be said that few buildings use a true run‑to‑failure philosophy. In almost all cases plants perform basic preventive
tasks, i.e., lubrication, machine adjustments, and other adjustments, even in a
run‑to‑failure environment. However in this type of management, machines and
other equipment are not rebuilt nor are any major repairs made until the
equipment fails to operate.
The major expenses associated with this type of
maintenance management are:
·
High spare parts inventory cost;
·
High
overtime labor costs;
·
High machine
downtime and
·
Low
production availability.
Since there is no attempt to anticipate maintenance requirements,
a building that uses true run‑to‑failure protocol must be able to react to all
possible failures within the facility. This reactive method of management forces
the maintenance department to maintain extensive spare parts inventories that
include spare machines or at least all major components for all critical
equipment in the building. The alternative is to rely on equipment vendors that
can provide immediate delivery of all required spare parts. Even if the latter
is possible, premiums for expedited delivery substantially increase the costs
of repair parts and downtime required to correct machine failures. To minimize
the impact on production created by unexpected machine failures, maintenance
personnel must also be able to react immediately to all machine failures.
The net result of this reactive type of maintenance
management is higher maintenance cost and lower availability of equipment. Analysis of maintenance costs indicate that a repair performed in
the reactive or run‑to‑failure mode will average about three times higher than
the same repair made within a scheduled or preventive mode. Scheduling the
repair provides the ability to minimize the repair time and associated labor
costs. It also provides the means of reducing the negative impact of expedited
shipments and lost production.
Labels: Hal Finkelstein, maintenance, run to failure