Common Failure Modes in Equipment Reliability Programs

Maintenance manager Robert was surrounded by grease as he hunted spare parts. On his way to the supply room he ran into Ron, the corporate reliability manager.

Robert was pressed for time but paused to greet Ron and exchange pleasantries. He told Ron that when he could, he’d like to discuss several machine reliability issues.

“Where are you heading in such a hurry?” Ron asked.

“The press is down again and I’m looking for parts,” Robert replied.

Ron followed up, “When you get it repaired, will it break again?”

“Of course it will. We have a lot of reliability issues with the press,” Robert answered.

Ron suggested, “Perhaps you’re focusing on the wrong problem.”

Robert laughed, thinking Ron was joking. “When the press is down, that’s where I need to be. Would you have me working on something that isn’t broken?” he chuckled.

He realized Ron was serious when the manager asked, “Could the press’s failure stem from a broken maintenance process? A robust, reliable maintenance routine would keep the press operating consistently.”

The conversation began to make Robert uneasy, but he had pressing work to finish. He thanked Ron, promising a deeper discussion once operations were back on track.

Except for the names, this encounter is factual and illustrates that most equipment failures arise from ineffective reliability processes. In this article, we examine the common reasons why equipment reliability programs falter, drawing on the authors’ extensive firsthand experience.

Failure Mode: Implementation Failure

All equipment reliability failures are ultimately tied to poor implementation. The first critical mistake is failing to establish an initial direction.

Setting clear goals, expectations, and a defined path significantly boosts the success rate of a reliability program. If upper management does not communicate the program’s objectives, accountability can never be achieved.

The authors have witnessed millions of dollars invested in reliability initiatives that lacked direction and clear goals. The Penn State manual Operating Equipment Asset Management outlines essential elements that should not be overlooked when establishing a reliability process.

Top‑down vision, decisive leadership, stakeholder participation, support, and ambitious objectives are indispensable for a successful implementation. Reviewing the full publication before launching a reliability program is highly advisable.

Failure Mode: Lack of Understanding

Even with the best intentions, a company may implement a reliability process that no one fully grasps. Without a deep understanding of how machine reliability is achieved, the program will flounder.

Technical knowledge must be combined with the authority to make critical decisions. If expertise is present but overridden, the reliability effort loses momentum.

Effective maintenance requires training that delivers the right approach for each machine. Choosing a single best practice and refining it for your plant is essential.

Without confidence in the reliability process, managers and plant personnel will lack belief in its outcomes, leading inevitably to failure.

Failure Mode: Lack of Accountability

Modern discussions often champion empowerment and self‑direction, but this must be balanced with adherence to the reliability framework.

Empowered teams should operate within the parameters of a well‑defined reliability process. Any deviation should follow a formal management‑of‑change procedure, and every employee must be held accountable for their responsibilities.

Corporate leaders sometimes allow small factions to drift away from the program’s core objectives, typically because they lack understanding or confidence in the process.

Handing reliability oversight to managers with success in unrelated areas, yet lacking reliability experience, is a common catalyst for failure. Without clear goals, accountability becomes meaningless.

Failure Mode: Market Conditions Prompt Plan Changes

Companies often invest heavily during prosperous times, sometimes overspending. When markets deteriorate, budgets are cut, and reliability programs may lose critical funding.

Reliability initiatives must be built on a stable spending strategy that survives market fluctuations. Once a dollar is wasted, it can never be recovered.

Organizations that maintain high quality at low cost endure tough periods. A robust reliability process is a key enabler of that advantage.

Failure Mode: Commitment Falters Over Time

When the initial implementation falters, other weaknesses erode the program. Without established direction and accountability, upper‑management commitment can wane.

As the perceived importance of the reliability program declines, attention drifts to other priorities, leaving the program under‑supported.

Failure Mode: Failure to Measure Results

You cannot improve what you cannot measure. A well‑designed metrics system distinguishes success from failure.

A metric is a clear, quantitative, objective measure that assesses performance or progress toward a goal. Skilled CMMS coordinators can deliver significant benefits by defining appropriate metrics and ensuring data is captured accurately.

Most organizations underutilize CMMS capabilities, relying too heavily on a single coordinator to decide what to measure. Metrics should be defined by a committee aligned with the reliability program’s objectives.

Six Sigma tools, including black and green belts, have proven useful on the maintenance side in many companies. Yet, the authors observe that many managers focus on product quality metrics, such as mean moisture content, while neglecting critical reliability indicators like mean time between failures.

Inconsistent metrics and peer pressure often lead to varying assessment scores across facilities, undermining the integrity of the reliability evaluation.

Failure Mode: Cultural Integration

Companies may establish steering committees, select champions, and train staff on cultural change, then bring in external hires to oversee the program.

Hiring outsiders for roles such as plant reliability engineers or schedulers is risky if they lack reliability experience or come from a run‑to‑fail culture.

External hires must be trained in the company’s culture before taking on core reliability responsibilities. Otherwise, they may inadvertently revert the organization to legacy maintenance practices.

Failure Mode: Lack of a Strategy for Managing Equipment

Condition‑based monitoring is essential, but it must be paired with a comprehensive equipment‑management strategy.

Tools such as Reliability‑Centered Maintenance (RCM) and Total Productive Maintenance (TPM) are valuable for guiding equipment reliability efforts.

Implementing pilot projects—RCM or TPM—on select machine centers can yield insights that can be scaled across facilities.

Failure Mode: Low‑Hanging Fruit Syndrome

Initial programs often yield obvious benefits—oil cleanliness, condition monitoring, failure analysis—immediately boosting morale.

However, once the low‑hanging fruit is harvested, a program without direction or structure can feel aimless, resembling a dog chasing its tail.

Reliability is a dynamic, evolving process; continuous improvement is required to extract ongoing value.

The authors concur that key elements—commitment, accountability, and sustainability—underpin all reliability programs. They have witnessed both successes and regressions linked to the failure modes outlined here.

Read more: FMEA Explained: What Is It and How Do You Implement It?

About the Authors

Gary Fore, CMRP brings 22 years of experience in the energy and building‑products sectors, specializing in reliability engineering with a focus on condition monitoring. He holds a B.S. in mechanical engineering and an A.S. in electro‑mechanical technology. His credentials include Certified Maintenance and Reliability Professional, Category III vibration analyst, Certified Lubrication Specialist, Level II infrared thermographer, and Machine Lubricant Analyst Level I.

Bill Hillman has 30 years in the steel industry and six years in the wood‑products sector, all dedicated to equipment asset management, with over 20 years in predictive maintenance. He is a Certified Maintenance and Reliability Professional, former chairman of the International Council for Machinery Lubrication, and holds certifications from the Society of Tribologists and Lubrication Engineers, among others. Trained in RCM, TPM, and 5‑S, he currently serves as managing partner of Asset Management Specialists Company. Contact: billcmrp@yahoo.com or 903‑407‑9488.