The Negative Consequences of Run-to-Failure Approach (Deferred Maintenance) in Today’s Facilities

Corrective maintenance is essential to facility management, ensuring equipment and systems are repaired promptly after a failure or malfunction. While some organizations may opt for deferred maintenance or run-to-failure strategies to save costs, there are significant negative consequences associated with these approaches. This article will explore the potential drawbacks of deferring maintenance or relying on the run-to-failure process in today’s facilities.

1. Increased Downtime:

 

One of the immediate consequences of deferred maintenance or a run-to-failure approach is increased downtime. When equipment is allowed to run until it fails, the time required for repairs or replacement can be extensive, leading to a prolonged disruption of operations. This downtime can result in lost productivity, missed deadlines, and dissatisfied clients.

 

2, Escalating Repair Costs:

 

Organizations may save money in the short term by deferring maintenance or relying on the run-to-failure approach. However, the long-term costs can be significantly higher. Neglected equipment is more likely to experience extensive damage or multiple failures, requiring more complex and costly repairs. The rush to fix or replace failed equipment can also result in higher emergency maintenance expenses.

 

3. Safety Risks:

 

Deferred maintenance or a run-to-failure approach can pose serious safety risks to employees and customers. Faulty equipment can lead to accidents, injuries, or even fatalities. Safety-critical systems, such as fire suppression or emergency response systems, must be regularly maintained to ensure their reliability in critical situations. Neglecting maintenance can have severe consequences for the well-being of individuals within the facility.

 

4. Decreased Energy Efficiency:

 

Regular maintenance is vital in optimizing the energy efficiency of equipment and systems. Deferred maintenance can decrease energy efficiency, resulting in higher utility bills and a larger environmental footprint. Malfunctioning equipment may consume more energy than necessary, leading to wasted resources and increased operational costs.

 

5. Negative Impact on Facility Lifespan:

 

Facilities that rely on deferred maintenance or the run-to-failure approach are more likely to experience premature deterioration. Neglected systems can deteriorate rapidly, shortening the overall lifespan of the facility. Early replacements or extensive renovations may become necessary, leading to unexpected expenses and disruptions.

 

6. Damage to Reputation:

 

Facilities that experience frequent breakdowns or prolonged downtime due to deferred maintenance or a run-to-failure approach can suffer reputational damage. Clients may lose confidence in the facility’s ability to deliver reliable services, resulting in a loss of business opportunities.

 

While deferred maintenance or a run-to-failure approach may initially seem cost-effective, the negative consequences outweigh the short-term savings. Increased downtime, escalating repair costs, safety risks, decreased energy efficiency, shortened facility lifespan, and damage to reputation are significant drawbacks of these strategies. Implementing proactive maintenance strategies, such as preventive and predictive maintenance, can help organizations avoid these consequences and ensure their facilities’ smooth operation and longevity.

Centrix Energy Partners is a national, privately held network of energy services companies (ESCOs) that designs, develops, finances, and implements customized energy efficiency upgrades for its clients.

​

We accomplish this through our best-in-class network of implementation companies that provide unparalleled customer service to the communities that we serve.  Our regional partners are local self-starters committed to helping their customers succeed and are supported logistically and financially by the parent company, Centrix Energy Partners.