A maintenance strategy is the decision, per asset or per asset class, of what kind of maintenance it gets: none until it fails, a task on a fixed interval, an inspection that decides, or a condition measurement that predicts. Most sites have a strategy by default, usually whatever the manual said, and a maintenance strategy example worked properly shows how different the deliberate version can be. This page lists the strategies, gives the rule for choosing, works one asset class through it, and says how an asset maintenance strategy becomes tasks on a schedule.
The strategies
Run to failure: no proactive task, fix it when it breaks, with a spare on the shelf if the downtime matters. Preventive on a fixed interval: replace or service on calendar or meter regardless of condition. Inspection-based: look at a fixed interval and raise corrective work from what is found. Condition-based: measure something that predicts failure and act on the trend. Redesign: remove the failure mode altogether. Every asset on a register is on one of those, whether anyone decided or not.
The rule for choosing
Start from the consequence of failure, not from the asset. Safety or environmental consequence: a task whatever it costs, or a redesign. Operational consequence: a task if it costs less than the failure, which is usually true for the assets the site depends on. Economic consequence only: run to failure is often right, with a spare. Then ask whether a task can actually prevent or predict the failure mode; wear-out modes can be inspected or replaced on interval, random modes cannot, and a task against a random failure is cost without benefit.
A worked example on one asset class
Take the pumps on a site. The main process pump: operational consequence, a wear-out mode in the seal and bearings, so an inspection-based strategy with a monthly check and a bearing replacement on run hours. The standby pump: the same hardware, but its failure has no operational consequence while the main one runs, so a quarterly test run and otherwise run to failure. The sump pump in a plant room: economic consequence, cheap, a spare on the shelf and run to failure. Three strategies for three pumps that a manual would treat identically.
Writing it into the schedule
Each strategy becomes tasks against the asset in the CMMS or the log: the monthly inspection with its checklist, the bearing change on a meter interval, the quarterly test run, and for the run-to-failure assets a note on the register that says so, with the spare's location. The history then tests the strategy: reactive work orders arriving between inspections say the interval is wrong; inspections that find nothing for a year say it is too short. The strategy is revised from the record, which is the difference between a strategy and a manual.
Questions people ask about maintenance strategy
Should every asset have the same strategy?
No, and the manual's intervals are one strategy applied to everything. The consequence of failure differs by asset and so should the strategy.
Is run to failure a real strategy?
Yes, for assets whose failure costs less than preventing it, provided the decision is written down and the spare is on the shelf. It is the wrong strategy only when it was never decided.
How often should the strategy be reviewed?
When the history contradicts it: failures between tasks, tasks that find nothing, or a change in what the asset is used for. A yearly look at the assets that matter is the usual habit.