Run-to-Failure or Act in Time?
In industrial production, the choice of maintenance strategies significantly impacts a company's efficiency, costs, and competitiveness. This is especially true in the automotive industry, where production line downtime can result in substantial financial losses. This article compares two primary approaches: run-to-failure (reactive maintenance) and preventive maintenance, evaluating their cost-effectiveness in practice. Run-to-Failure Maintenance (Reactive Maintenance) The essence of run-to-failure maintenance is to use equipment until it breaks down, with repairs conducted only after failure occurs. The advantage of this method is minimal maintenance expenditure until a malfunction happens. Components are utilized to their maximum lifespan. However, this strategy has significant drawbacks: unexpected downtime reduces production reliability and predictability, increases the risk of severe secondary failures, and leads to higher repair cos...