Every maintenance strategy looks smart in a PowerPoint.
Preventive maintenance looks disciplined.
Predictive maintenance looks modern.
Run-to-failure looks honest, at least until it ruins your weekend.
The problem isn’t that one of these strategies is “right.”
The problem is pretending one of them works everywhere.
If you’re building a PM program from scratch, this is usually where things start going wrong. Teams pick a strategy like it’s a personality trait instead of a tool. They commit emotionally. They defend it. They force it onto assets that never asked for it.
Machines don’t care about your philosophy. They care about physics.
PM Is for Known, Repeatable Failure Modes
Preventive maintenance works when failure is predictable.
Wear. Fatigue. Contamination. Degradation you can see coming if you bother to look.
PM makes sense when:
-
The failure develops gradually
-
Inspection actually reveals early warning signs
-
The cost of inspection is lower than the cost of failure
-
Touching the equipment doesn’t introduce more risk than leaving it alone
PM fails when it’s applied blindly. Calendar-driven tasks. Vague checks. Frequencies chosen because they feel responsible.
That’s how PM turns into motion without meaning and why teams end up arguing about why PM frequencies are almost always wrong instead of questioning whether the strategy fits the asset at all.
PdM Is for Failures You Can Measure Before They Bite
Predictive maintenance is seductive.
Sensors. Trends. Dashboards. Numbers that look like certainty.
PdM works when:
-
The failure produces measurable indicators
-
The signal shows up early enough to act
-
You have the skill to interpret the data
-
Someone actually responds to what the data says
PdM fails quietly when it becomes a data-collection hobby. When alerts pile up. When thresholds are never adjusted. When trends are watched instead of acted on.
PdM doesn’t replace thinking. It just gives you more chances to ignore reality with confidence.
Run-to-Failure Is a Strategy, Not a Sin
Run-to-failure scares people because it sounds reckless.
It isn’t. Not always.
RTF makes sense when:
-
The asset is non-critical
-
The failure is cheap and safe
-
There’s no early warning to inspect
-
Preventive work costs more than replacement
-
Downtime is acceptable
RTF becomes dangerous when it’s unintentional. When teams claim PM coverage but quietly accept failures because “that’s just how it is.”
That’s not strategy. That’s denial with paperwork.
This is where strategy selection matters more than compliance, and where run-to-failure as an intentional choice stops being a theory and starts being a decision.
The Real Question Isn’t “Which Strategy Is Best?”
The real question is:
What failure behavior does this asset actually have?
Some assets deserve PM.
Some deserve PdM.
Some deserve to die quietly and be replaced.
Most deserve a mix.
Strategy should follow failure mode, not comfort level. That’s why understanding the difference between PM, PdM, and run-to-failure isn’t about picking a side. It’s about assigning the right level of attention to the right equipment.
When teams skip this step, everything downstream breaks. Tasks don’t fit. Frequencies drift. PdM alerts get ignored. Failures feel random even when they aren’t.
Strategy Breaks Down When Tasks Don’t Match It
Here’s where most programs quietly collapse.
Teams say they’re doing PM, but tasks don’t inspect anything meaningful.
They say they’re doing PdM, but no one acts on trends.
They say they’re running to failure, but nobody planned the spare.
This mismatch happens when the maintenance strategy doesn’t match the work.
If the task doesn’t align with the strategy, the strategy doesn’t exist. It’s just a label.
Strategy Is Not Permanent
Assets age. Loads change. Processes shift. What started as PM might become PdM. What started as PdM might degrade into RTF.
Good programs revisit strategy when failure behavior changes instead of defending old decisions out of habit.
Bad programs pick once and never look back.
Choose Strategy With Your Eyes Open
There is no universal answer.
There is only alignment:
-
Between failure mode and task
-
Between strategy and reality
-
Between what you say you’re doing and what’s actually happening
The moment those drift apart, maintenance turns reactive while still pretending it’s proactive.
Build Strategies on Tasks That Actually Fit
If you want PM task lists that are built around real failure modes and designed to support the right strategy instead of fighting it, the PM Task List Library gives you a practical starting point.
The tasks are structured so you can decide where PM makes sense, where PdM adds value, and where run-to-failure is the honest choice. From there, you adapt. Refine. Reassign.
Strategies don’t fail on paper.
They fail when reality shows up and nobody adjusts.