Reliability and Safety: A Symbiotic Path to Operational Excellence

In the past year, many plants have cut maintenance budgets without fully grasping the long‑term cost of reduced reliability. At a recent industry conference, this dilemma surfaced repeatedly.

When senior leaders ask how to trim reliability spend, the most effective response is to ask: How much are you willing to cut from your safety budget?

Not everyone sees reliability and safety as inseparable. I was reminded of a letter from Chevron CEO Dave O’Reilly, who wrote, “Reliability, like safety, is a critical element of operational excellence and requires our constant attention.” His words underscore the truth that these disciplines reinforce one another.

Accidents most often happen when equipment fails to run reliably, forcing operators into reactive, high‑risk situations. For example, a packaging line that frequently stops can lead operators to bypass safety guards to clear jammed cartons, increasing the risk of hand injuries.

Similarly, under‑funded maintenance can result in leaking pipes. When operators abandon routine housekeeping, the resulting slick surfaces amplify slip‑and‑fall hazards. A neglected bearing can pile up product on a conveyor, prompting a frantic cleanup that ends in a slip, creating a vicious cycle of incidents.

As reliability professionals, our challenge is to articulate these connections to leadership. We must elevate maintenance from a perceived “necessary evil” to a strategic investment that drives productivity and reduces overall costs.

Maintenance budgets are the most controllable cost—other expenses are tied to capital projects, fixed contracts, or global market forces. Yet, when managed wisely, maintenance and reliability can deliver the greatest return on investment, not through indiscriminate cuts but through a disciplined focus on long‑term reliability.

So, the next time a CEO or plant manager asks how to cut reliability costs, remember to ask if they’re prepared to reduce the organization’s investment in safety instead.