Setting Reliability Programs Up for Success from the Start
Organizations often invest in dashboards, KPIs, and analytics tools expecting reliability insights to follow.
But reliability analysis does not begin with reporting tools.
It begins with failure coding.
If failure codes are poorly structured, inconsistently applied, or not aligned to reliability objectives, no reporting layer can fix the underlying data problem. The result is misleading MTBF calculations, anecdotal root cause discussions, and stalled improvement efforts.
Failure coding in Maximo is not an administrative detail. It is foundational system architecture for reliability.
The Real Purpose of Failure Coding
Maximo’s failure reporting framework is built around a hierarchy:
- Failure Class
- Problem
- Cause
- Remedy
This hierarchy is intended to standardize how failure events are categorized so they can be analyzed at scale.
When structured correctly, failure coding enables:
- Identification of dominant failure modes
- Meaningful MTBF analysis
- Weibull modeling and statistical reliability analysis
- Preventive maintenance gap identification
- Engineering-driven improvement initiatives
If your organization cannot confidently answer:
“What are the top three failure modes for this asset class?”
The issue is almost always structural — not analytical.
Where Failure Coding Breaks Down
We frequently see the same patterns:
- Failure codes created during implementation and never revisited
- Overly broad categories (e.g., “Mechanical Failure”)
- Excessively granular codes that technicians avoid using
- Free-text descriptions replacing structured coding
- No governance or periodic review
When this happens, organizations lose the ability to:
- Roll up failure data across asset classes
- Identify chronic issues
- Align PM strategy to real failure mechanisms
- Quantify reliability improvement over time
Reliability becomes reactive rather than engineered.
Design Failure Coding for Analysis — Not for Work Order Close-Out
Failure codes should not be designed merely to help close work orders.
They should be designed to answer reliability questions.
Before structuring or revising failure codes, ask:
- Do we want to perform Weibull analysis?
- Do we need to support FMEA / FMECA processes?
- Do we want to evaluate PM effectiveness?
- Do we want to justify capital replacement decisions with data?
If the answer is yes, then the failure hierarchy must distinguish failure modes clearly and consistently.
Build a Logical Failure Hierarchy
A well-structured hierarchy typically follows this logic:
Failure Class → What type of asset or system
Problem → What happened (symptom)
Cause → Why it happened (mechanism)
Remedy → What corrected it
Example Structure
- Failure Class: Pump
- Problem: Loss of flow
- Cause: Mechanical seal wear
- Remedy: Replace seal
This allows analysis at multiple levels:
- All pump failures
- All loss-of-flow problems
- All seal-related causes
Without hierarchy, roll-up reporting becomes fragmented and unreliable.