Run-to-Failure Maintenance: Benefits and When to Use It

This may be surprising, but not all maintenance strategies focus on preventing failures. In fact, some, like Run-to-Failure Maintenance (RTF), simply accept them. RTF operates on a simple principle: let the equipment run until it breaks, then repair or replace it. 

No preventive maintenance, no condition monitoring—just fixing things when they fail. A purely reactive strategy.

At first glance, this approach seems obviously inefficient. But it’s more common than you might think. Take a factory’s light bulbs—why schedule inspections for something that’s cheap and easy to replace? Therefore, in cases like this, RTF makes a lot of sense. 

However when applied to critical equipment, this strategy can have disastrous consequences like unplanned downtime, costly emergency repairs, and major safety risks.

So, the logical question is when does RTF work, and when does it backfire? In this article, we’ll explore the mechanics of run-to-failure maintenance, its risks, potential benefits, and alternative approaches that may be more economical.

What Is Run-to-Failure Maintenance (RTF)?

Run-to-failure maintenance (RTF) is a reactive maintenance strategy where equipment is deliberately operated until it breaks. At this point, there are only two outcomes - to repair or replace it. 

Unlike preventive or predictive maintenance, RTF does not include scheduled inspections, condition monitoring, or early intervention. The entire approach relies on responding only when a failure occurs.

In practice, RTF is utilized when failure is predictable, manageable, and has minimal impact on operations. Consider non-critical components such as warehouse lighting, disposable conveyor belts, or backup generators—when these stop functioning, the repair is simple, and downtime is either planned or minimal.

However, this method is often misunderstood. RTF does not indicate a lack of maintenance planning. Rather, it’s a calculated decision to allow certain assets to fail because the costs of proactive maintenance exceed the risks of breakdowns. 

That said, its effectiveness depends on where and how it’s applied. This strategy can quickly become a liability for critical equipment, where failure leads to lost productivity, high repair costs, and safety concerns.

Maintenance Management and Work Order Control - RTF

Manage all maintenance: from work orders to indicator graphs, all in a single spreadsheet.

Spreadsheet

Maintenance Management and Work Order Control

Optimize your maintenance

When Does a Run-to-Failure Maintenance Strategy Make Sense?

When applied correctly, RTF can be a practical and cost-effective approach. But when used in the wrong context, it can lead to chaos, downtime, and excessive costs.

An RTF strategy can be justified under the following conditions:

1. The Asset Is Low-Cost and Easy to Replace

If a piece of equipment or component is inexpensive, readily available, and simple to swap out, running it to failure is often more efficient than implementing a preventive maintenance program. 

Items like light bulbs, air filters, and disposable conveyor belts fall into this category as they don’t require monitoring, and replacing them is routine.

2. Downtime Has Minimal Impact on Operations

RTF works best when equipment failure doesn’t disrupt production, safety, or workflow efficiency. If a failed component can be replaced quickly and without causing bottlenecks, then investing in a more complex maintenance strategy might not be necessary.

3. The Cost of Preventive Maintenance Is Higher Than Repairs

Some assets are more expensive to maintain than to replace. If preventive maintenance tasks—such as lubrication, calibration, or condition monitoring—demand more time and resources than merely replacing the component when it fails, RTF could be the more sensible choice.

4. Spare Parts Are Readily Available

An RTF strategy only works if replacement parts are stocked and accessible. If a piece of equipment breaks and a replacement isn’t on hand, the downtime can escalate quickly and lead to major disruptions.

5. The Failure Doesn’t Pose Safety or Compliance Risks

A key rule for using RTF is that failures must not create safety hazards or regulatory violations. If equipment failures put workers at risk, damage other assets, or lead to environmental concerns, a proactive maintenance approach is necessary.

6. The Asset Has a Low Risk of Failure

Some equipment is designed to run reliably with minimal intervention. If an asset rarely fails, forcing preventive maintenance might be overkill. In such cases, running it to failure can be justified if its replacement is straightforward and not disruptive.

Example of Run-to-Failure Maintenance

Run-to-failure maintenance is all around us, from everyday applications to industrial settings. 

Here are a few examples:

1. Light Bulbs in a Manufacturing Facility

One of the most common applications of RTF is in lighting systems. A manufacturing plant with hundreds of overhead lights doesn’t waste resources inspecting and testing each bulb. Instead, they simply replace them when they burn out.

Why does this work?

• Failures are predictable—every light bulb will eventually stop working.
• Replacement is quick and easy—a worker can swap a bulb in minutes.
• No impact on production—as long as critical areas remain illuminated, there’s no major disruption.

In this case, RTF is a logical and cost-effective choice. There’s no need for preventive maintenance because the failure is minor and easily managed.

2. Backup Pumps in a Water Treatment Plant

A water treatment facility might use backup pumps that are only activated when the primary system fails. Since these pumps are used rarely, they may be kept in service until they fail—which follows an RTF approach.

Why does this work?

• The pump is not in constant use, so wear and tear are minimal.
• Failures don’t immediately disrupt operations if other pumps are functional.
• Spare pumps are available, reducing the impact of downtime.

However, this approach only works if failures are contained. If an entire backup system fails when needed, it could jeopardize operations. Such a scenario would require a shift toward a proactive maintenance solution.

3. Conveyor Belts in a Distribution Center

Some facilities use low-cost conveyor belts to move non-critical materials. Instead of conducting routine inspections, these belts may be used until they wear out and then replaced.

This strategy makes sense when:

• Belts are inexpensive and easy to swap.
• Failure doesn’t disrupt core production.
• There’s a backup system or manual alternative.

However, ensure the conveyor is not a key part of production, as running it to failure could lead to unplanned downtime and costly emergency repairs.

What Are the Benefits of Run-to-Failure Maintenance?

Run-to-failure maintenance may not be the most sophisticated strategy, but when applied correctly, it has advantages. It can help reduce maintenance costs, free up time for higher-priority tasks, and simplify maintenance planning. 

However, these benefits only hold true when RTF is used on assets that don’t disrupt production - such as those that impact safety or become an emergency when they fail and are costly to repair.

Low Maintenance Costs for Non-Critical Assets

One of the main reasons companies choose RTF is because it holds potential cost savings for non-critical asset replacement. Preventative maintenance requires servicing, inspections, and planned interventions. But that's unnecessary work for assets meeting RTF's criteria.

Instead of dedicating resources to monitoring assets that aren’t critical, teams can let them run until failure, avoiding expenses related to frequent servicing.

For assets that are inexpensive, rarely fail, or have minimal impact on operations, this can be a practical approach. By reducing scheduled maintenance tasks, companies also lower labor costs and the administrative work associated with maintenance planning. 

While RTF can save money in the short term, it can also lead to higher repair costs and longer downtimes if applied to equipment that is difficult or expensive to replace.

Time Savings

Employing RTF on non-critical assets eliminates the need for routine monitoring and scheduled servicing, allowing maintenance teams to focus on higher-priority equipment. In a facility where hundreds of assets require attention, skipping preventive tasks for non-essential components can save time. 

Instead of technicians performing routine maintenance on every piece of equipment, they can allocate their time to machinery that truly impacts productivity.

This also helps lower the administrative workload. Work orders aren’t continuously generated for minor assets, and maintenance managers don’t need to monitor performance metrics for components that don’t warrant tracking. 

However, although this may appear efficient, it only succeeds if failures are contained. When RTF is applied to assets that fail unexpectedly and cause operational disruptions, the time “saved” can quickly become lost productivity.

Easy Implementation

Compared to predictive or preventive maintenance, RTF requires no specialized tracking systems, condition-monitoring sensors, or complex scheduling. The process is simple: when an asset fails, it is repaired or replaced. 

The simplicity of RTF can be appealing to companies who don't want to put in the effort to run a maintenance strategy that is appropriate for their level of operations—even though they need it. 

In cases where companies rely only on non-critical assets or their resources are depleted, RTF happens to fit the situation, and there is no other option.

Minimal Planning Requirements

Since RTF doesn’t rely on structured maintenance schedules, it significantly reduces the need for long-term planning. In situations where RTF fits, it’s not necessary to track asset conditions, schedule preventive work, or analyze failure trends. 

Instead, these companies only focus on operational needs and address failures as they arise. This flexibility makes RTF a good fit in industries where some assets have unpredictable failure patterns, making traditional preventive approaches unnecessary.

However, lack of planning can still be a major drawback. If equipment fails unexpectedly and spare parts aren’t available, repair lead times can stretch downtime longer than necessary, impacting production schedules. 

Without proper inventory management, a seemingly simple strategy can create bottlenecks and higher operational costs in the long run.

What Are the Challenges of Run-to-Failure Maintenance?

While RTF maintenance can be simple and cost-effective in certain situations, it poses significant risks when applied to the wrong assets. What may appear to be an easy solution can rapidly escalate into an expensive, reactionary approach that disrupts operations.

Unplanned Downtime and Lost Productivity

One of the major downsides of RTF is that it provides no control over when a failure will occur. If a critical piece of equipment suddenly stops functioning, it can halt production completely. 

Unlike planned maintenance, which schedules work orders in advance, RTF relies on responding to breakdowns as they happen—making downtime entirely unpredictable.

Higher Repair Costs and Emergency Expenses

Since RTF doesn’t include preventive measures, failures can escalate into larger, costlier problems. When components fail unexpectedly, they can damage nearby parts, resulting in more extensive repairs than if the issue had been addressed sooner.

Emergency repairs also tend to be more expensive than planned maintenance. Facilities may need to:

• Pay premium rates for emergency service calls.
• Source higher-cost replacement parts on short notice.
• Overtime costs to get technicians on-site for urgent repairs.

A company that believes it’s saving money by skipping preventive maintenance may ultimately spend more when breakdowns occur at the worst possible times—during peak production, after hours, or when technicians are unavailable.

Safety Hazards and Compliance Risks

For certain types of equipment, failure can impact worker safety. If a vital system—such as a high-pressure pump, electrical panel, or conveyor system—fails unexpectedly, it can expose employees to the risk of injury or hazardous conditions.

In industries with strict regulatory standards, equipment failures can also lead to compliance violations. Facilities in sectors like manufacturing, food production, and pharmaceuticals must meet strict guidelines for operational safety. 

If essential machinery breaks down and compromises product quality, worker safety, or environmental regulations, companies could face fines, legal action, or reputational damage.

Longer Lead Times for Repairs

Not all equipment can be replaced immediately. Many assets require specialized parts or expert technicians to restore them to working condition. If a facility relies on RTF but doesn’t have the right spare parts in stock, downtime can stretch from hours to days while waiting for shipments or service availability.

Some industries deal with supply chain delays, meaning that waiting for a critical replacement part could significantly impact production and revenue. 

Unlike preventive maintenance—where spare parts and labor can be scheduled in advance—RTF offers no buffer against delays, leaving companies vulnerable to long-term disruptions.

Lack of Maintenance Data and Predictability

A major drawback of RTF is that it doesn’t generate useful maintenance data. With preventive or predictive maintenance, teams track failure patterns, performance trends, and wear rates to improve future planning. 

Because RTF is reactive and failures happen unexpectedly, teams are left scrambling to fix problems rather than using insights to prevent them.

Without structured maintenance tracking, facilities also struggle with:

• Inconsistent repair histories, making it harder to diagnose recurring issues.
• No visibility into asset lifecycle trends.
• Difficulty forecasting budgets since repair costs are unpredictable.

Over time, this lack of insight can make maintenance operations less efficient, forcing teams to operate in constant firefighting mode.

What Is Needed to Implement a Successful RTF Maintenance Program

For RTF to be even remotely effective, businesses need a clear understanding of which assets can handle this strategy, a reliable stock of replacement parts, and a maintenance team ready to respond quickly when failures occur. 

Without these elements in place, what seems like a cost-saving method can quickly lead to production delays and unplanned expenses.

Even with careful planning, an RTF strategy remains highly unpredictable. It offers no control over when failures happen, visibility into asset conditions, or the ability to anticipate costly disruptions. 

This lack of insight makes it difficult for teams to optimize resources, budget effectively, and maintain operational stability. While some assets may tolerate an RTF approach, depending on it for broader maintenance operations puts companies at risk of reactive firefighting, increased costs, and avoidable downtime. 

The reality is that most facilities need a more proactive approach—one that supports data-driven decision-making, strategic interventions, and long-term reliability.

How Does a CMMS Help with Run-to-Failure Maintenance

While run-to-failure maintenance permits some non-critical assets to function until they fail, depending solely on it without supervision can have significant negative consequences. 

This is where facility management software, like a CMMS (Computerized Maintenance Management System), bridges the gap—helping organizations track failures, optimize responses, and manage maintenance resources efficiently.

A CMMS enhances RTF strategies by providing real-time visibility into equipment performance and failure trends. Instead of waiting for failures to happen blindly, maintenance teams can log breakdowns, track and analyze historical data, and ensure spare parts are readily available. This enables faster repairs and better inventory management.

Also, integrating a CMMS helps organizations move beyond purely reactive maintenance by combining RTF with condition monitoring and predictive analytics. 

Even when RTF is used for non-critical assets, maintenance teams can still gain insights into asset lifecycles, failure patterns, and cost impacts. They can make informed decisions about whether to continue running to failure or shift to a more proactive approach.

Using Tractian's CMMS To Plan Your RTF Maintenance Strategy

Implementing a Run-To-Failure maintenance strategy requires meticulous planning and precise execution to ensure it aligns with your organization's operational goals. 

Tractian's CMMS can be the ideal companion in this process, functioning as an Industrial Copilot that boosts efficiency and reliability.​

The software lets you strategically choose assets suitable for an RTF approach by providing comprehensive data on equipment performance and criticality. This informed decision-making ensures that only non-essential assets are designated for RTF, thereby safeguarding core operations. 

Integrating RTF strategies into a CMMS allows your business to effectively balance the cost benefits of RTF with the structured oversight of a proactive maintenance program. In doing so, you will spend less money, and your assets will be more secure.

The best maintenance strategies don’t rely on guesswork. See how Tractian's CMMS provides the visibility and control you need—even for RTF.