Run-To-Failure vs Breakdown maintenance

These two types of maintenance often cause confusion since on the surface they seem to be the same thing.

I think an example would help with understanding the difference:

If you have a sprinkler system, and let's assume there is nothing you know of to predict when it is going to break down other than a rough estimate of how long it should last. Within that, you may know that there will be some 'infant mortality' where new parts will fail soon, and then there will be an expected life, after which 'end of life' is an estimate for when things will fail, and unless you live in a freeze/thaw climate there is little scheduled maintenance that is cost effective.

The SYSTEM as a whole would typically run as -'Breakdown maintenance' because

• There is little you can do to predict failure in advance.[1]
• When something breaks you are unlikely to throw the whole system away and replace it with a new system

But sprinkler HEADS would typically run as 'Run-to-failure maintenance' because

• Again, other than life expectancy, there is little you can do to predict failure in advance.
• When a sprinkler head breaks, regardless of the reason such as end of life or run over by a vehicle while popped up and running, you are not likely going to repair it, or replace just one part, you are likely going to replace it. Hence, you ran it until it failed, then you recycled it or threw it away and replaced it with a new one.

So in summary: Run-to-failure maintenance means you buy it, use it, throw it out and replace it when it fails. Breakdown maintenance means you buy it, use it, repair it, repeat 'use/repair' cycle until no longer appropriate.

Both have some similar processes for managing. Do you keep stock of one or more items that are run-to-failure so you can quickly change to it when it is broken or do you order new. [2] Then the same question is asked for Breakdown maintenance but for parts that most commonly fail or wear out.

Also, there are probably a lot fewer 'run-to-failure' maintenance assets that you might think at first, for example, thinking about our sprinkler system, if the most common failure is due to hard water and a build-up of calcium, then you may want to instead replace them, but then bring them back and have them put in a de-calcification liquid (think CLR, Vinegar)

Does it matter that you know the difference between these two? Can you just ignore the 'definitions'. Probably. But it makes sense to be intentional about your maintenance, and understanding differences like this help you be more intentional.

[1] If you are running in a climate that has an annual freeze, you might have scheduled maintenance for the spring on top of Run-To-Failure and Breakdown maintenance, looking for and replacing things broken by freeze/thaw cycle(s).

[2] People like to blame Apple and others for the undeniable fact that products they built previously last and in some cases are still working, but newer equipment fails at a much younger age. One of the reasons is government regulations that required a change in solder on so called 'consumer' products, and the newer solder 'dries out and fails' after a few years. (Server equipment can still use the solder that has no early failure expectations.) This is why when you buy electronic equipment you generally shouldn't buy too many spares right away, because if the ones in use fail due to the solder aging out … the unused ones in a box have probably also got the same problem or will soon.