Run to Failure Maintenance

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.