“Run to failure” sounds lazy. Like maintenance shrugged, walked away, and decided to let the machine die in peace.
That reputation exists for a reason.
But sometimes—quietly, deliberately—run to failure is the most honest strategy in the room. Especially when you’re building a PM program from scratch and discovering not every asset deserves the same level of attention.
The problem isn’t run to failure.
The problem is people using it without admitting what it actually is.
Because there’s a difference between strategic neglect and professional denial. One is a choice. The other is just waiting for chaos with better branding.
What “Run to Failure” Actually Means (When It’s Done Right)
True run to failure doesn’t mean ignoring equipment. It means this:
“We understand how this fails, what it costs when it does, and we’re choosing not to intervene early.”
That’s not laziness. That’s math.
Run to failure makes sense when:
-
The asset is cheap
-
The failure is predictable
-
Downtime is short
-
There’s no safety or collateral risk
-
Replacement is fast and stocked
Think light bulbs. Small fans. Non-critical pumps. Redundant components.
You don’t PM a $20 part with a two-minute swap time. That’s not reliability. That’s busywork pretending to be responsibility.
Where Run to Failure Turns Into a Lie
This is how run to failure usually shows up in real plants.
It sounds like:
-
“We’ll just keep an eye on it.”
-
“It’s not critical… yet.”
-
“It’s made it this far.”
-
“We don’t have time to PM everything.”
That’s not strategy. That’s hoping the machine dies on someone else’s shift.
When failure causes extended downtime, safety exposure, secondary damage, or overtime hemorrhaging, calling it run to failure doesn’t make it true. It just makes it comfortable.
That’s how teams confuse neglect with strategy and then wonder why their choices don’t line up with how maintenance tradeoffs actually work.
The Fantasy That Keeps Run to Failure Alive
Here’s the part nobody likes to admit.
Run to failure survives because it feels decisive without requiring effort.
No PMs to write.
No frequencies to debate.
No inspections to defend.
Just silence. Until the bang.
And when the failure finally happens, the story is always the same:
“Nobody could’ve predicted this.”
“It failed unexpectedly.”
“We didn’t see any warning signs.”
Which is impressive, considering the machine had been leaking, vibrating, heating up, or sounding wrong for months.
Run to failure didn’t fail.
Awareness failed.
The Thin Line Between Strategy and Sabotage
Real run to failure requires uncomfortable honesty.
You have to answer:
-
What does failure actually cost us?
-
How often does it fail?
-
What breaks when it breaks?
-
How long are we down?
-
Who absorbs the fallout?
If you can’t answer those, you’re not running anything to failure. You’re just waiting.
A strategic run-to-failure asset is one where failure is contained, recovery is fast, and the consequences are understood and accepted.
Most plants don’t have many of those. They just pretend they do.
Why PM Programs and Run to Failure Aren’t Enemies
This is where people get it wrong.
Run to failure isn’t anti-PM.
It’s part of a mature strategy mix.
Strong programs deliberately choose:
-
Some assets to PM aggressively
-
Some assets to monitor
-
Some assets to let fail
Weak programs pretend everything is covered while secretly hoping nothing breaks.
This confusion is why teams struggle when deciding how to choose between PM, PdM, and run-to-failure, and end up defaulting to habit instead of intent.
The Warning Signs You’re Lying to Yourself
If these phrases show up often, your “strategy” is already compromised:
-
“We don’t have time for PMs right now.”
-
“It’s always been like that.”
-
“It usually lasts a while.”
-
“We’ll deal with it when it breaks.”
Those aren’t maintenance decisions. They’re coping mechanisms.
Machines don’t care how busy you are. They fail when physics says it’s time.
How to Use Run to Failure Without Letting It Own You
If you’re going to run something to failure, do it honestly:
-
Document the decision
-
Understand the failure mode
-
Stock the replacement
-
Accept the downtime
-
Revisit the choice
And most importantly, watch the asset.
Run to failure does not mean blind to failure. It means aware, prepared, and willing to let go.
This is also where teams start realizing why PM frequencies fail in the real world when they try to apply calendar logic to assets that never needed it.
The Bottom Line
Run to failure is not evil.
It’s not lazy.
And it’s not free.
Used intentionally, it’s efficient.
Used carelessly, it’s reckless.
If your maintenance strategy can’t explain why something is allowed to fail, then failure isn’t a strategy. It’s just neglect wearing a hard hat.
If you want help deciding what deserves PM, what deserves monitoring, and what can honestly be allowed to fail, the PM Task List Library gives you structured task lists and a clear framework for making those calls before the machine makes them for you.
Choose your failures.
Or they’ll choose you.