I am puzzled by the choice of some individuals within an organization to opt for "operate to fail" (OTF) for certain equipment, despite its critical importance and high costs (both direct and indirect). According to them, the expenses associated with product cost far exceed those of maintenance costs.
Which types of equipment are prone to failure when in operation? How can equipment be categorized as either critical or high-cost? When considering high cost, are we referring to a value exceeding 10,000 baht or USD?
For instance, when a Fin Fan fails due to belt damage, the maintenance cost for spare parts alone is 15,000 Baht per set, excluding indirect costs. I am unable to calculate the total cost at this time.
Regularly monitoring vibrations of fin fan belts is essential to prevent frequent failures. The practice of 'run to fail' for fin fan belts is common, but discussions on improving maintenance practices can be found online. Have you considered monitoring vibration levels for your fin fans?
Monthly vibration monitoring and regreasing are essential maintenance tasks for Fin Fan units.
If the belt needs to be replaced, it may not be considered purely OTF. When is the decision made to replace the belt? Is OTF synonymous with no scheduled maintenance or overhaul?
I agree that "operate to fail" can seem counterproductive at first glance, particularly when dealing with high-cost equipment. However, keep in mind that the cost of maintaining certain types of equipment can indeed surpass the cost of replacing them after they fail. Additionally, regular maintenance doesn't always guarantee that equipment won't fail unexpectedly. There's a need to balance the cost and benefits involved while factoring in variables such as time, availability of replacement parts, and downtime inconvenience against the criticality of the equipment. OTF isn't always the best approach, but in some cases, it can be practical and economically justifiable.
It's definitely an intriguing approach, but I think it highlights a risk-taking mindset that some organizations adopt, perhaps in a misguided belief that short-term savings will outweigh long-term consequences. While the initial maintenance costs might seem high, failing equipment can lead to even bigger setbacks in productivity and reputation, not to mention the potential safety issues involved. It might be worth considering a balanced scorecard approach that evaluates both immediate financial metrics and the broader impacts on operations and company culture in the long run.
It's definitely a puzzling mindset, but I think for some, the "operate to fail" approach might stem from a belief in short-term savings over long-term reliability. They might be prioritizing immediate cost-cutting rather than considering the bigger picture—like the potential downtime, emergency repairs, and safety risks that could arise from a failure. There’s a dangerous gamble in ignoring preventative maintenance, especially with critical equipment, as those unexpected failures can end up being far more expensive in the long run. Maybe what’s needed is a deeper conversation about the true costs and risks involved in sticking with that mindset.
✅ Work Order Management
✅ Asset Tracking
✅ Preventive Maintenance
✅ Inspection Report
We have received your information. We will share Schedule Demo details on your Mail Id.
Answer: - "Operate to fail" (OTF) is a strategy where individuals intentionally allow equipment to run until it fails before performing maintenance or repairs. Some individuals opt for this approach if they believe that the expenses associated with product cost far exceed those of maintenance costs.
Answer: - Opting for "operate to fail" can lead to increased costs in terms of emergency repairs, downtime, loss of productivity, and potentially higher safety risks. These costs can be both direct (related to repair and replacement) and indirect (such as loss of revenue and damage to reputation).
Answer: - Choosing "operate to fail" for critical equipment can result in unexpected failures, production delays, increased costs, reduced operational efficiency, and potential safety hazards. It may also impact the overall reliability and lifespan of the equipment.
Answer: - Yes, organizations can consider preventive maintenance strategies, predictive maintenance techniques, condition-based monitoring, and reliability-centered maintenance (RCM) to optimize equipment performance, reduce downtime, and control maintenance costs effectively.
Join hundreds of satisfied customers who have transformed their maintenance processes.
Sign up today and start optimizing your workflow.