Is "Run to failure" a valid maintenance strategy? True or False? Find out by checking the attachment.
When it comes to maintenance and reliability, the ultimate goal is to provide value efficiently. It's important not to waste resources trying to prevent inevitable failures or spending more on prevention than the cost of the failure itself. While options like redesigning are available, it may not make sense to spend $2000 annually to prevent a failure that only costs $500 every 5 years. However, it's crucial to consider safety and environmental risks when choosing a maintenance approach. It's essential to focus on the failure mode level and ensure that any maintenance task is justified financially and in terms of risk management. Maintenance tasks should not only be applicable but also effective in preventing failures.
"Run-to-failure refers to the frequency of failure modes in maintenance strategies. One effective method to prevent such failures is by having strategic spare parts or equipment in place."
What is the reason behind this issue?
When developing a successful strategy, it is important to consider both the criticality of the situation and the economical parameters involved. In this scenario, the main focus is on the criticality factor, which is closely followed by comparing the cost of preventative maintenance (PM) to the cost of failure. This comparison helps determine the most efficient and cost-effective approach to handling the situation.
Dokken discussed the importance of creating a maintenance strategy based on criticality and cost considerations. Criticality plays a major role, along with comparing the costs of preventive maintenance versus the costs of failure. After an in-depth conversation with partners and analyzing various examples, it was agreed that "run to fail" is a valid maintenance strategy. This approach involves addressing failures by eliminating them and considering the economic impact as well.
While "Run to failure" might seem unwise at first glance, in some cases it can be a cost-effective maintenance strategy for non-critical or easily replaceable components. It's all about properly managing risks and costs. However, it should be considered critically, as the repercussions of a failure could outweigh the short-term savings. I'd advise anyone contemplating this approach to make sure that the failure of the machine won't have hazardous or expensive consequences. I'll check the attachment for more insights, thanks for sharing!
While "Run to Failure" could possibly be a valid strategy for certain non-critical systems or those with redundancies, I'd argue it is not generally a sustainable or cost-effective choice. This strategy tends to lead to unexpected breakdowns, increased downtime and can even pose safety hazards. Consistently scheduled preventative maintenance might require an upfront investment, but it more than pays for itself in the long term by reducing significant repairs and maintaining overall system efficiency.
✅ 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: 1. What is the "Run to Failure" maintenance strategy? - The "Run to Failure" maintenance strategy involves running equipment or machinery until it breaks down before performing any maintenance or repairs.
Answer: - The validity of the "Run to Failure" maintenance strategy can vary depending on the specific equipment, its criticality, and the associated costs of downtime and repairs.
Answer: - One advantage of the "Run to Failure" strategy is that it can be cost-effective for non-critical equipment with low repair costs and minimal impact on operations.
Answer: - Some disadvantages of the "Run to Failure" strategy include higher potential for unexpected downtime, safety risks, and increased repair costs if the equipment failure leads to more extensive damage.
Join hundreds of satisfied customers who have transformed their maintenance processes.
Sign up today and start optimizing your workflow.