Adding preventive maintenance tasks feels productive, but volume alone does not build reliability. One of the most common mistakes maintenance organizations make is assuming that more PMs, inspections, or lubrication routes improve equipment performance.
Unoptimized PM frequencies waste labor. Organizations end up wasting parts and potentially introducing new failures through unnecessary intervention.
Steve Janow, senior reliability consultant at MVP One, emphasizes that maintenance teams should perform the right work at the right interval instead in the course, “MVP 306: PM Development & Optimization.”
Precision Matters Most in Lubrication
Lubrication offers one of the clearest examples of this principle. Janow cautioned that maintenance teams often treat lubrication as a routine task without enough attention to precision. Overlubrication, he explained, can be more damaging than underlubrication. Excess grease generates heat, damages seals, and shortens bearing life, much like insufficient lubrication causes wear and premature failure.
Rather than issuing a vague instruction such as "grease bearing," a PM procedure should specify the lubricant type, application method, and exact quantity required. Janow stresses details such as cleaning the fitting beforehand and limiting application to a specified amount. These details keep the task consistent regardless of who performs the work.
Consistent Intervals Protect Trend Data
The same principle extends into PM scheduling. Reliability programs depend on collecting meaningful data through repeatable inspection intervals. Vibration analysis, for example, holds value when readings occur at a consistent, repeatable interval capable of establishing a trend. Daily inspections should target conditions capable of changing within a single shift; monthly inspections should address issues that develop over longer periods.
When a monthly PM stretches into a six-week or two-month cycle, it no longer functions as a monthly inspection. Floating intervals make trend data less reliable. As a result, important failure indicators can go unnoticed.
A Ratio Worth Watching
Tracking the ratio of preventive and predictive maintenance work against corrective work as an indicator of PM effectiveness. A high ratio may signal excessive inspection frequency, thin instructions, or corrective findings that go undocumented. A low ratio may point to intervals set too long or a facility lacking condition-monitoring capability.
Janow says reliability programs should stay data-driven, not assumption-driven. A KPI that reads too high or too low should prompt questions about frequency, inspection quality, and equipment behavior. It’s not about a chase for a perfect number. Optimized maintenance means performing the right work with the right precision and frequency to prevent failures and strengthen reliability.
Register for MVP 306 to learn how to build data-driven PM programs.
