Are Your Lubrication Practices Truly Effective?

Relubrication decisions rarely fit into a simple black‑and‑white framework. In practice, a lubrication practice is either effective or it isn’t—there’s no middle ground.

During a recent seminar I led, a mechanical supervisor argued fiercely against revising his plant’s lubrication routine. He boasted that the site had invested significant time in developing and executing high‑quality lubrication practices, all of which were recorded in the CMMS: scheduled, issued, completed, and logged. He could even pull statistics to back up his claims.

I asked him to walk me through a typical bearing relubrication job, focusing on the key elements he would expect to see. He listed the machine, the work scope (lubricating a group of bearings), the planned frequency, and the product to be used—a name‑brand, general‑purpose grease. On the surface, that seemed solid, but a deeper look revealed a problem. When plant personnel compared the documented grease with what was actually in use, they found a mismatch. My response was that no single product is universally required; the lubricant in use was acceptable for the application.

This isn’t a contradiction. The items he identified were the bare minimum needed to code a lubrication preventive maintenance task in the CMMS. They ensured that the task could be scheduled and tracked, but they did not guarantee that the practice was right. The real gaps were:

• No definition of the required volume.
• No specification of the tool (e.g., grease gun, volumetric ratio) to ensure the correct volume is delivered.
• No criteria for judging whether the delivered volume is adequate under operating conditions.
• No requirement that the machine be in a particular running state when the work order is executed.

These missing details determine whether a lubrication practice is truly effective or simply a checkbox.

Often, the perception of quality stems from the mere existence of a documented practice. A task scheduled in the CMMS is seen as a “standard” even if it is fundamentally flawed. The root of the issue lies in how the CMMS is populated: a broken plan can become a formal procedure, but that does not make it functional.

Why do development teams expend hours on replicating a defective lubrication plan? Because the paper‑based program is considered “good enough,” and the effort is diverted elsewhere. That default decision shapes future operations. Unless the decision is driven by proven best practice, the resulting procedures are wrong.

So, how can you verify your lubrication practice’s validity? Try one of these two approaches:

1. Benchmark against best practice. Perform a technical gap analysis—evaluate product selection, viscosity grade, frequency, volume, contamination control, oil health management, and oil analysis effectiveness—to uncover improvement opportunities.
2. Follow the money. Review lubricant purchase history and replacements for bearings, sprockets, chains, reducers, and hydraulic components. Exclude replacements due to extenuating circumstances. The remaining spend reflects the real value of your program and highlights potential savings from precision lubrication.

In the supervisor’s case, he believed the practices were right because they fit into a routine relubrication system. The work could be scheduled, tracked, and statistics could prove completion. However, he lacked an objective measure of quality. A practice is only right when it is accurate, thorough, efficient, and documented transparently.