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 costs and production losses.

Preventive Maintenance

    The goal of preventive maintenance is to regularly inspect and maintain equipment at predetermined intervals before failures occur. This approach enhances production reliability and predictability, reduces unexpected downtimes, and optimizes maintenance costs in the long term.

While preventive maintenance requires higher initial investment compared to reactive maintenance, it prevents major breakdowns and associated costs. A well-established preventive maintenance system not only extends equipment lifespan but also ensures production process stability.

Atlas Copco, a leading manufacturer of compressors and industrial equipment, highlights several benefits of preventive maintenance based on their experience:

1. Increased uptime and reliability: Scheduled inspections and maintenance allow early detection of potential issues before they cause failures. Proactively addressing problems reduces the risk of unexpected breakdowns, minimizing downtime and production delays while enhancing system reliability. (Source: Atlas Copco)
2. Cost savings: Reactive maintenance can be more expensive due to comprehensive repairs and prolonged downtimes. In contrast, proactive maintenance for assembly equipment helps avoid costly emergency repairs and reduces the need for expensive replacement parts.
3. Enhanced safety: Preventive maintenance identifies potential safety issues before accidents occur, ensuring safe operation of tools and equipment.
4. Extended equipment lifespan: Proactive maintenance extends the life of assets by maintaining their optimal condition and addressing potential problems early. This prevents premature replacements and related costs.
5. Improved efficiency and productivity: Preventive maintenance schedules and inspections ensure high operational efficiency. Well-maintained equipment performs at peak capacity, enhancing productivity and product quality.
6. Sustainability: Regular maintenance reduces waste and energy consumption by ensuring efficient equipment operation. This approach not only lowers company costs but also benefits the environment.

    Atlas Copco's examples demonstrate that preventive maintenance enhances both equipment protection and long-term business competitiveness. Compared to run-to-failure, preventive maintenance offers a stable, predictable operational environment, ultimately saving costs and boosting production efficiency.

Predictive Maintenance - The Next Level

    Beyond reactive and preventive maintenance, predictive maintenance represents the next level, leveraging modern technologies such as sensors and data collection systems. Real-time equipment monitoring detects even minor performance drops or abnormal vibrations, prompting intervention before failures occur.

Atlas Copco illustrates how predictive maintenance not only prevents downtime but also optimizes maintenance expenses. With a well-functioning predictive system, companies can pinpoint the exact moment for intervention, avoiding unnecessary stoppages and premature part replacements.

Cost-Effectiveness and Risks in the Automotive Industry

    In the automotive industry, production line downtime can lead to significant financial losses and customer dissatisfaction. Therefore, relying solely on run-to-failure maintenance is risky, as unexpected breakdowns can cause substantial production losses. A single day of downtime can result in losses reaching millions, especially during critical production stages.

In contrast, preventive maintenance ensures continuous equipment operation, reduces downtime, and offers a more cost-effective long-term solution. This approach is particularly vital for equipment whose failure significantly impacts production and company reputation.

Real-Life Example - How to Save Millions

    Consider an automotive factory's press machine. If maintained on a run-to-failure basis, a major hydraulic system breakdown could cost €20,000-30,000 in repairs, with production losses adding another €50,000 within a few days.

Conversely, regular preventive maintenance such as timely hydraulic oil changes and pump condition monitoring via sensors costs only €2,000-3,000, eliminating production losses entirely.

This example clearly illustrates how preventive maintenance proves not only more cost-effective but also more reliable and sustainable.

Illustration

    Imagine owning a car used daily for commuting. Running it until failure is like never servicing it, only reacting when the engine smokes or a tire blows out. The repair costs will be higher, and you'll waste time stranded on the roadside.

Conversely, preventive maintenance involves regular oil changes, tire checks, and timely replacement of worn parts. This ensures safer, more predictable travel while extending the car's lifespan and avoiding unexpected expenses.

The same principle applies to production equipment. A well-maintained production line resembles a well-serviced car: reliable, efficient, and cost-effective. The question is: Is it worth risking downtime when prevention is cheaper and safer in the long run?

Conclusion The Importance of Informed Decisions

    Ultimately, choosing a maintenance strategy is not just a technical decision but a business choice that directly impacts a company’s efficiency, costs, and competitiveness. While run-to-failure may seem cost-effective initially, long-term expenses from downtime, scrap generation, and customer dissatisfaction can lead to significant losses.

Preventive and where feasible, predictive maintenance not only extends equipment lifespan but also ensures a stable production environment, cost optimization, and environmental sustainability.

The real question is not whether maintenance is worth it, but whether you can afford not to do it.

---

Best regards,
LBMM Team