Explaining Run-to-failure

I often read posts and articles railing against run-to-failure as a valid maintenance strategy. or worse, RCM practitioners trying to apologise for run to fail decisions and explain other ways of doing things.

RTF is hard to accept initially because engineers and tradesmen (Journeymen) have an affinity with machinery as Moubrey would say. We like to get them running, tune them to the max, and keep them running smoothly. 

It's in our DNA fortunately... But this doesn't help us to create the minimum safe levels of maintenance for our physical assets. 

How to manage redesign

Redesign is standard output from RCM.

It comes into play when the requirements of the asset exceed it's inherent reliability. In layman's terms, if we want it to deliver, say, 15 HP and it is a 10 HP motor, then it is not fit for purpose. Period.

And there is no form of maintenance known to man that will make it do what the users require of it. That would be a modification, which although sometimes managed by maintenance, is not actually a maintenance task.

The standard way of dealing with this during the RCM process is to note it, and to refer it on for redesign. RCM itself does not cater for redesign, but will determine when one is required.

The problem here is three fold...