Key takeaways
Short answer: Run-to-failure means deliberately running an asset until it breaks, then fixing or replacing 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.
Run-to-failure is a legitimate, deliberate strategy for assets where failure is cheap and harmless. A spare light fitting, a redundant pump, a part you can swap in minutes for a few euros — spending preventive labour on these would cost more than the failures themselves.
On critical assets, run-to-failure invites catastrophe. If failure stops the line, threatens safety or the environment, or means a long-lead, expensive replacement, waiting for it to break is not a strategy — it is a gamble with the whole plant as the stake.
A plant runs two pumps in parallel; either can carry the load. Run-to-failure on these is smart — if one fails, the other covers while it is swapped, and preventive work would just add cost. The same plant runs a single, long-lead extruder screw whose failure stops the line for two weeks awaiting a replacement. Run-to-failure there would be reckless; it gets condition monitoring and planned replacement. Same plant, opposite strategies, decided entirely by criticality.
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. The error is applying it by default rather than by deliberate criticality analysis.
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, so run-to-failure is a documented decision, not an oversight.
1. Run-to-failure by neglect. Calling "we never got to it" a strategy after the fact.
2. Run-to-failure on the bottleneck. Its failure costs the whole plant.
3. No criticality analysis. Strategy assigned by habit, not consequence.
4. Ignoring lead time. A cheap part with a twelve-week lead time is not a run-to-failure candidate.
Run-to-failure on a non-constraint costs little OEE — the redundancy or low impact absorbs it. The same strategy on the bottleneck would be disastrous, which is exactly why criticality, not habit, must drive the choice.
Fabrico links failures to assets and downtime cost, so you can see which assets genuinely tolerate run-to-failure and which do not. Book a demo to ground your strategy in real impact data.
No — chosen deliberately by criticality it is rational; the error is applying it by default.
Cheap, non-critical, redundant, fast-to-replace assets.
Use an asset criticality assessment based on failure consequence and lead time.
No — its failure costs the whole plant, so it needs preventive or condition-based care.
No — a cheap part with a long replacement lead time can still stop the line for weeks.
Programați o întâlnire individuală cu experții noștri sau înscrieți-vă direct în planul nostru gratuit.
Nu este nevoie de card de credit!
Login
Blog
