Run-to-failure maintenance (RTF) is a maintenance strategy that involves letting equipment or machinery run until a component fails. At this point, the maintenance team will repair or replace the faulty part and return the equipment or machinery to its normal operating state. This means that run-to-failure focuses on reactive maintenance as opposed to preventive maintenance. While run-to-failure has its advantages, it also has its drawbacks. Let's explore more.
Pros of run-to-failure Maintenance
One of the most significant advantages of run-to-failure maintenance is its cost-effectiveness. Run-to-failure is particularly beneficial for assets not critical to operations and whose failure does not have serious consequences. Organizations can save considerable money by eliminating the need for regular maintenance activities.Another advantage of run-to-failure maintenance is that it helps organizations prioritize their maintenance efforts. Limited resources can be focused on critical assets, ensuring they are in good working condition and reducing the risk of unexpected failures.
Run-to-failure maintenance can also benefit equipment or machinery that is difficult or expensive to maintain. Sometimes, the maintenance cost may be higher than replacing the asset when it fails (a light bulb for example).
Cons of run-to-failure Maintenance
One of the most significant drawbacks of run-to-failure maintenance is the risk of unexpected equipment failure. When an asset is run to failure, it can fail at any time, which can cause downtime and affect the productivity of an organization. A run-to-failure approach can be particularly problematic if the asset is critical to operations.When equipment fails unexpectedly, it disrupts the normal workflow. The work order backlog can quickly accumulate, causing delays, increased downtime, and decreased productivity. The work order backlog becomes a burden that hampers the efficiency and effectiveness of the maintenance team, impacting overall operations and customer satisfaction.
Run-to-failure maintenance can also increase the risk of safety incidents. Faulty equipment can cause accidents, resulting in injuries or even fatalities. This can be particularly problematic in industries where safety is a top priority, such as manufacturing or construction.
Rrun-to-failure maintenance can result in higher repair costs. When a component fails, it can domino effect on other parts of the equipment or machinery. These additional failures can lead to more extensive repairs and higher costs than if the asset had been maintained regularly.
Overall, run-to-failure maintenance can be a cost-effective strategy for non-critical assets or those with a low impact on operations. However, weighing the pros and cons carefully before implementing this approach is important. Organizations should consider the potential risks and costs associated with unexpected failures and safety incidents and the potential benefits of focusing limited resources on critical assets.
Metrics To Consider
Measuring the effectiveness of the run-to-failure maintenance strategy is essential to determine if it is the right approach for certain assets. Some metrics to consider include the following:- Downtime: This measures when equipment or machinery is not used due to a failure. Because the cost of downtime can be very high, this is usually the first metric to consider when weighing out a run-to-failure approach.
- Equipment life cycle: This measures how long the equipment or machinery lasts before it needs to be replaced. A short equipment life cycle could indicate that the run-to-failure approach could be more effective.
- Maintenance costs: This measures the cost to maintain equipment or machinery over time. A high maintenance cost could indicate that the run-to-failure approach could be more cost-effective.
- Overall equipment effectiveness: This measures how well the equipment or machinery performs. Low overall equipment effectiveness could indicate that the run-to-failure approach could be more effective.
Considerations
Organizations that want to adopt the run-to-failure approach for some equipment should ensure they plan to respond quickly to equipment or machinery failures. Readiness means having the necessary spare parts, equipment, and personnel available to carry out repairs as soon as possible.Additionally, organizations should consider the cost implications of using the run-to-failure approach. While it may seem like a cost-effective approach in the short term, it can result in higher long-term costs due to increased downtime, repairs, and replacements.
Ultimately, organizations should carefully evaluate their equipment and maintenance needs before deciding where to implement a run-to-failure approach. While it may suit some situations, it is not a one-size-fits-all solution and should be cautiously adopted.
