Key takeaways
Short answer: Run-to-failure means deliberately running an asset until it breaks, then fixing it — no preventive work. On a cheap, non-critical, easily-replaced asset, that is the economically correct choice. On a critical asset whose failure stops the line or creates a hazard, it is reckless. The skill is choosing run-to-failure deliberately by criticality, not by neglect. See also condition based vs time based maintenance.
Preventive work on a trivial asset wastes labour better spent on critical equipment. Choosing run-to-failure for the trivial frees resources for what matters — that is reliability-centred thinking, not laziness.
An asset criticality assessment sorts equipment by failure consequence. The low end gets run-to-failure; the high end gets preventive or condition-based care. The matrix makes the call explicit.
Run-to-failure on a non-constraint costs little OEE. The same strategy on the bottleneck would be disastrous — which is exactly why criticality, not habit, must drive the choice.
See how Fabrico captures this automatically on your lines — explore OEE for manufacturing or book a demo.
No — chosen deliberately by criticality, it is rational.
Cheap, non-critical, redundant, fast to replace.
Use an asset criticality assessment.
No — its failure costs the whole plant.
Anmeldung
Blog
