Run-to-Failure (RTF) is a maintenance strategy that allows equipment to operate until it breaks down, at which point it is repaired or replaced. Often misunderstood as neglect, RTF is a deliberate choice used in specific operational contexts. As industries aim to balance cost, efficiency, and uptime, understanding the role of RTF becomes critical. This article explores how RTF compares to other maintenance strategies, its impact on equipment reliability, and when it can be an effective part of an overall asset management plan — rather than a sign of poor maintenance practices.
What is Run-to-Failure Maintenance?
Run-to-Failure is a maintenance strategy in which equipment is deliberately allowed to operate until it fails, at which point corrective action—usually repair or replacement—is taken. Unlike reactive maintenance, which responds to unplanned breakdowns without a guiding strategy, RTF is intentional and typically applied to assets where the cost of downtime is low or manageable.
RTF assumes that certain components or systems are either inexpensive, non-critical, or easily replaceable, making the cost of planned failure lower than the cost of ongoing inspection, servicing, or condition monitoring. This approach is often used for items like light bulbs, small motors, or isolated pumps—equipment where failure has limited or no cascading impact on larger systems.
It’s important to clarify that RTF is not a synonym for negligence. When used correctly, it is a calculated decision based on factors such as failure risk, operational redundancy, repair logistics, and asset criticality. For example, a facility may choose to let a non-essential fan motor run-to-failure, knowing that it can be swapped out in minutes without disrupting production.
However, RTF requires a support structure to be viable—spare parts availability, fast repair protocols, and clear documentation. Without these, it can quickly turn into unplanned downtime, defeating its purpose.
Common misconceptions around RTF include the belief that it implies a lack of maintenance policy or oversight. In reality, RTF is part of a broader asset management framework when applied correctly. The key difference lies in its intentionality: it is a planned strategy, not a failure to plan.
RTF vs. Preventive and Predictive Maintenance
To understand the place of Run-to-Failure within a broader maintenance strategy, it’s essential to compare it with two commonly used alternatives: preventive maintenance and predictive maintenance. Each has distinct principles, costs, and implications for operational efficiency.
Preventive maintenance follows a time-based or usage-based schedule. Tasks like lubrication, parts replacement, or system checks are performed at regular intervals, regardless of the asset’s actual condition. The objective is to reduce the likelihood of failure before it happens. While this approach can increase reliability, it also involves potentially unnecessary work and higher ongoing maintenance costs—especially for assets that rarely fail.
Predictive maintenance, by contrast, relies on real-time condition monitoring to assess the health of equipment. Technologies such as vibration analysis, infrared thermography, oil analysis, and IoT-enabled sensors are used to detect early signs of wear or malfunction. Maintenance is performed only when data indicates that failure is imminent. While more efficient and targeted, predictive maintenance requires significant investment in monitoring equipment, software, and technical expertise.
RTF, in comparison, is low-cost in the short term because it avoids scheduled servicing and monitoring. It assumes that the consequences of failure are manageable and that immediate repair or replacement is viable. The trade-off is unpredictability and the potential for extended downtime, especially if repair logistics aren’t tightly controlled.
The choice between these strategies depends on asset criticality, failure impact, and total cost of ownership. For example, preventive maintenance might be ideal for safety-critical systems, predictive maintenance for high-value continuous-use assets, and RTF for non-essential components with minimal failure consequences.
In many cases, organizations adopt a hybrid model. Critical assets are monitored closely, moderately important assets follow a preventive schedule, and low-risk items are allowed to fail under RTF. The key is alignment between maintenance strategy, business risk tolerance, and operational priorities.
Why Do Companies Use Run-to-Failure?
Despite its apparent risks, many companies deliberately choose Run-to-Failure as part of their maintenance strategy. The key reason is simple: in specific contexts, it makes economic and operational sense. RTF isn’t about ignoring maintenance—it’s about applying maintenance resources where they matter most.
- Cost Efficiency for Low-Impact Assets: For equipment that is inexpensive, non-critical, or easy to replace, the cost of preventive or predictive maintenance often exceeds the cost of letting it fail. Light bulbs, small motors, standalone fans, or backup pumps are classic examples. Scheduling regular maintenance or monitoring these items in real time simply isn’t worth the effort.
- Simplified Resource Allocation: RTF allows companies to focus their maintenance personnel, spare parts inventory, and monitoring systems on high-value or high-risk assets. By deprioritizing low-impact equipment, resources can be deployed more strategically. This prioritization can improve overall reliability without bloating maintenance budgets.
- Redundancy and Operational Resilience: In systems designed with built-in redundancy—like dual cooling fans or backup conveyor belts—RTF can be a logical choice. If one component fails, the redundant system takes over, allowing operations to continue while the failed unit is repaired or replaced. In these cases, RTF carries minimal operational risk.
- Fast Replacement Capability: When spare parts are inexpensive and immediately available, and the repair or replacement process is quick, RTF can be the most efficient option. Companies often maintain stock of quick-swap components specifically to support this strategy. The downtime window is small enough that the failure has no significant impact on productivity.
- Reduced Administrative Overhead: Preventive and predictive maintenance require scheduling, documentation, tracking, and often integration with CMMS. RTF reduces this administrative load for certain asset classes, streamlining operations and focusing attention where it matters.
Ultimately, RTF is used not because failure is desirable, but because—in the right conditions—planned failure is less costly than planned maintenance. When guided by asset criticality and operational context, it can be a rational, effective choice.
Risks and Downsides of Run-to-Failure
While Run-to-Failure can offer economic benefits in certain contexts, it comes with significant risks that must be clearly understood. When misapplied or unmanaged, RTF can lead to increased downtime, safety incidents, and long-term damage to both equipment and operations.
- Unplanned Downtime: The most immediate risk of RTF is unexpected equipment failure. Unlike preventive or predictive strategies, RTF offers no warning. If a part fails in the middle of production or during a critical process, the result can be complete shutdown until repairs are made. In tightly scheduled or continuous operations, even a few hours of downtime can result in lost revenue and missed deadlines.
- Safety Hazards: In some systems, failure doesn’t just halt operations—it creates real safety risks. This is especially true for pressurized systems, rotating machinery, or electrically sensitive components. If failure occurs in a way that causes secondary damage—leaks, electrical shorts, overheating—it can put personnel and equipment at risk. Applying RTF without a clear understanding of failure modes can be reckless.
- Hidden Costs of Emergency Repairs: While RTF avoids scheduled maintenance costs, it often incurs higher expenses during emergency repairs. These include expedited labor, overtime call-outs, rush-ordered parts, or even temporary workarounds to restore production. These reactive costs are rarely accounted for when companies evaluate RTF solely on the surface-level savings.
- Collateral Damage and Secondary Failures: When a component fails, it can damage other parts of the system. A worn bearing might seize and destroy a shaft; a failed seal might lead to fluid contamination. These cascading failures are not always predictable, and they often turn a minor breakdown into a major overhaul. This erodes long-term reliability and increases lifecycle costs.
- Lack of Data and Predictability: RTF generates little actionable data. Without condition monitoring or inspection records, it’s harder to track performance trends or identify early signs of systemic issues. This blind spot can compromise asset maintenance and make planning more reactive than strategic. Over time, the absence of visibility limits opportunities for process improvement or optimization.
RTF works only when the cost and risk of failure are truly low. If failure introduces safety risks, extended downtime, or costly knock-on effects, RTF can become more expensive—and more dangerous—than it appears on paper.
Impact of Run-to-Failure on Equipment Reliability
Run-to-Failure, by definition, allows equipment to operate without intervention until breakdown. While this may be efficient in isolated cases, its long-term effects on equipment reliability are substantial and often negative—particularly when applied without clear boundaries.
- Reliability Defined: Equipment reliability refers to the probability that an asset will perform its intended function without failure over a specified period. Key maintenance metrics include Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF), Mean Time to Repair (MTTR), and asset availability. A reliable system minimizes downtime, avoids disruptions, and delivers consistent performance. RTF often works against these goals when overused or poorly managed.
- Reduced MTBF and Inconsistent Performance: By design, RTF permits operation to the point of failure. This naturally reduces MTBF, as no effort is made to prevent or delay failure. Over time, this can lead to increased variability in asset performance, especially for systems where components fail unpredictably or degrade in nonlinear ways. The lack of control introduces instability into maintenance and production schedules.
- No Early Intervention = Increased Wear and Damage: With preventive or predictive strategies, maintenance teams can catch problems early—before they result in damage. RTF eliminates this window of opportunity. Equipment is allowed to degrade to the point of failure, often pushing components beyond safe operational limits. This increases the likelihood of catastrophic failure and accelerates wear on surrounding parts.
- Loss of System-Level Reliability: One failing component can compromise the reliability of an entire system. For example, a failed pump might lead to pressure loss across a line, impacting other units. RTF doesn’t account for these interdependencies. In complex systems, even a “non-critical” failure can ripple out into broader unreliability if not properly assessed.
- Data Gaps in Failure Analysis: Since RTF often involves minimal monitoring, failures occur without context. This makes it difficult to conduct root cause analysis or track degradation trends over time. Without detailed failure histories, reliability engineers lack the information needed to improve system performance or identify design flaws.
While RTF may be appropriate for isolated, low-impact components, its effect on overall reliability is typically negative. Organizations that rely heavily on RTF without compensating controls will experience more unpredictable operations, shorter asset lifespans, and reduced confidence in system uptime.
How CMMS Can Help with Run-to-Failure Maintenance
Even though run-to-failure (RTF) maintenance is naturally reactive, Computerized Maintenance Management System software can still greatly improve its management. Here’s how a CMMS can make a difference:
Streamlining Maintenance Operations
- Centralized Data Management: A CMMS provides a centralized platform for logging all maintenance activities and equipment failures. This allows maintenance teams to track the history of failures and repairs, which can be crucial for understanding patterns and making informed decisions.
- Work Order Management: With a CMMS, maintenance teams can efficiently create and manage work orders as soon as a failure occurs. This ensures that repairs are conducted promptly, minimizing downtime.
Predictive Insights and Planning
- Identifying Failure Patterns: By analyzing historical data, a CMMS can help identify recurring issues and failure patterns. This insight enables maintenance teams to anticipate potential failures and prepare accordingly, even within an RTF framework.
- Optimized Inventory Management: A CMMS helps manage spare parts inventory by tracking usage patterns and predicting future needs. This ensures that necessary parts are available when equipment fails, reducing the time required for repairs.
Enhancing Maintenance Strategy
- Tailoring Maintenance Approaches: A CMMS can assist in tailoring maintenance strategies to specific assets, taking into account their criticality and cost. This helps in deciding when RTF is appropriate and when a more proactive approach is necessary.
- Continuous Improvement: By continuously analyzing maintenance data, a CMMS supports ongoing improvements in maintenance practices, helping organizations refine their strategies over time for better performance and cost-effectiveness.
Using eWorkOrders as Run-to-Failure Maintenance Strategy
Managing equipment reliability—whether through Run-to-Failure, preventive, or predictive strategies—requires a system that can unify operations and provide real-time insights. eWorkOrders, a cloud-based CMMS, offers exactly that: a centralized platform designed to streamline maintenance workflows across industries, including power generation, manufacturing, water treatment, and more.
With eWorkOrders, maintenance teams can efficiently track assets, generate and manage work orders, and monitor job progress—all in real time. This is particularly valuable in RTF scenarios, where immediate response and resource coordination are key. When equipment fails, eWorkOrders ensures that repairs are triggered, assigned, and tracked without delay, minimizing unplanned downtime.
Powerful reporting tools give maintenance managers instant visibility into asset history, failure frequency, repair turnaround times, and parts usage. These analytics are essential for identifying patterns, reclassifying RTF assets that may need more attention, and continuously refining your strategy. We also support inventory management, helping ensure that critical spare parts are available when needed—especially important in reactive maintenance models.
Request a demo today and discover how eWorkOrders can help you establish a Run-to-Failure maintenance strategy.
Conclusion
Run-to-Failure is often misunderstood as a careless or outdated approach, but in the right context, it can be a rational and cost-effective maintenance strategy. When used selectively—for non-critical, low-cost assets—and supported by proper planning, fast repair protocols, and tools like CMMS software, RTF can contribute to operational efficiency without sacrificing reliability. The key is knowing where it fits within your overall asset management framework. By combining RTF with data-driven insights and responsive systems like eWorkOrders, organizations can balance risk, cost, and performance to achieve more strategic, resilient maintenance outcomes.
FAQs
What does run-to-failure mean?
Run-to-failure (RTF) is a maintenance strategy where equipment is allowed to operate until it breaks down, at which point repairs or replacements are made. It is used deliberately for non-critical assets where the cost of failure is lower than the cost of preventive maintenance.
What is the run-to-failure test?
A run-to-failure test involves operating equipment continuously until it fails to study its durability, failure modes, or lifespan under real-world or accelerated conditions. This testing is often used in product development and reliability engineering.
What is another word for run-to-failure?
Another term for run-to-failure is reactive maintenance, though this is a broader category that includes unplanned breakdown responses. RTF specifically refers to a planned decision to allow certain assets to fail before taking action.
What is an example of run-to-failure maintenance?
Allowing non-essential light bulbs in a facility to burn out before replacing them is a common example of RTF. The cost of tracking or preemptively replacing them outweighs the impact of simply fixing them when they fail.
