My Ask a Plant Manager co-host Joe Kuhn has spent decades in manufacturing, first as a plant manager and now as a consultant. One lesson took him longer than others to learn: Reliability isn't just about the tools, metrics or processes that a plant puts in place. It's about what people do with them.

In another episode of maintenance myth busters, we look at five assumptions that can get in the way of better reliability, from collecting more data to investigating every failure and celebrating emergency repairs. Kuhn challenges the idea that more activity automatically leads to better results and explains why management behavior and culture ultimately determine whether reliability improvements stick.

You can also listen our myth buster episode on Great Question: A Manufacturing Podcast.

1. More operational and maintenance data automatically leads to better decisions.

MYTH

More data can help maintenance and operations teams understand equipment performance, but collecting information isn't the same as acting on it. In Kuhn's experience, too much data can overwhelm teams and distract them from the problems that deserve attention.

When organizations have too much information to analyze, they can get caught chasing unusual events that happen once every 25 or 30 years, instead of addressing the recurring failures that happen monthly or every six months.

"Data is good, but more data can just be overwhelming," Kuhn says. "Be careful collecting more data. It sounds good, but it can be a crutch. It can be something you're doing, and it doesn't turn into action on the shop floor."

Kuhn makes an important distinction between collecting data and observing work in the plant. Teams that rely primarily on key performance indicators (KPIs) and opinions can miss what's actually happening with equipment and maintenance practices. Direct observation can change priorities by revealing problems that aren't apparent in the numbers.

The goal isn't to collect as much data as possible. It's to identify the information that helps teams make better decisions and take effective action.

2. If the reliability KPIs are green, the plant is performing well.

MYTH

Kuhn is particularly skeptical of dashboards that show a sea of green. A metric that turns red can trigger pressure from senior management, prompting teams to redefine thresholds, exclude outliers or change reporting practices until the problem disappears from the dashboard.

But changing a color doesn't fix equipment.

“I am very cautious. Very cautious. I mean, I've seen those dashboards do far more harm than good, especially as you go up in the organization,” Kuhn says.
He recalls a time when his boss called to ask about a piece of equipment that had been down for two hours. The boss had seen the downtime turn red on his dashboard and wanted to know what was happening.

Kuhn wasn't concerned that he couldn't immediately explain the situation. Maintenance and production supervisors, superintendents and the head of engineering were already addressing it. If they needed his involvement, they would call.

The episode illustrates how dashboards can pull managers away from strategic work and encourage employees to prioritize reporting metrics over solving operational problems. A junior employee might respond to the same pressure by focusing on keeping the dashboard green, paying too close attention, rather than trusting the people closest to the equipment to do their jobs.

Dashboards can be useful, but green indicators don't necessarily mean equipment is healthy or that a reliability program is effective. Leaders need to understand what the metrics measure, how they're calculated and whether they reflect actual conditions on the plant floor.

3. A root cause analysis can solve all reliability problems.

MYTH

Kuhn supports root cause analysis (RCA), but he cautions against making it the default response to every equipment failure.

Some organizations require an RCA for any downtime lasting more than an hour. That can quickly produce a backlog of investigations and action items that nobody has time to complete. Kuhn has seen investigations generate more than 100 action items, an unrealistic number of changes for a team to implement effectively.

"Actions change the reliability of the equipment, not just doing the root cause," he says.

The point of an investigation is to identify what the organization can change to prevent a recurrence or detect a problem earlier. That might mean improving a rebuild procedure, making a design change or using predictive maintenance technology to identify a developing failure before it causes downtime.

Kuhn recommends narrowing the focus to a few meaningful actions rather than producing an exhaustive list that goes nowhere. Teams should also distinguish between recurring, consequential failures and rare events that may not justify an extensive investigation.

A pump that fails every eight months deserves scrutiny. A failure that occurs once in 30 years may warrant a different response.

RCA is a tool for finding and understanding problems. Its value depends on whether the organization follows through with changes that prevent those problems from happening again.

4. Maintenance teams resist reliability improvements because they don't want to change.

REALITY (But there's more to the story)

Resistance to change is real, Kuhn says, but management shouldn't assume that maintenance technicians are the problem.

Technicians may have seen previous improvement initiatives launch with enthusiasm and then disappear when leadership loses interest. That history creates a trust issue: Why should this effort be any different?

There can also be personal concerns. New reliability practices may require technicians to learn unfamiliar skills, use condition-monitoring equipment or adopt new problem-solving methods. Others may be accustomed to the overtime and emergency work generated by unreliable equipment.

But Kuhn says maintenance technicians often want the same things reliability leaders want: better-planned jobs, properly kitted parts, precision work and equipment that runs well. Many entered the trades because they enjoy fixing equipment and take pride in doing the job right.

The challenge is convincing them that the organization will support those goals over the long term.

"Everybody's going to have some resistance to change, and that's why quick wins are so important," Kuhn says.

Management needs to demonstrate that the initiative is producing results. If a pump used to fail every six weeks and then runs for six months after the team changes the rebuild process, that's evidence worth sharing. Leaders should connect the improvement to the actions that made it possible and show that the organization intends to sustain the effort.

Reliability culture develops when management follows through on commitments and employees see tangible results from their work.

5. Celebrating emergency repairs improves morale.

MYTH — NOT ON ITS OWN

When a major breakdown threatens production, the technicians who get the plant running again often receive attention and praise. Their work deserves recognition, Kuhn says, but celebrating emergency recoveries without giving equal or greater attention to preventive work can reinforce a reactive maintenance culture.

The less visible achievements are often the ones that improve reliability: a technician who identifies an anomaly with infrared inspection, a mechanic who completes a precision rebuild or a team that reduces recurring pump failures.

"You've got to celebrate the pump that didn't fail," Kuhn says. “You've got to celebrate the people that go out on there with their infrared gun and find an anomaly before the failure. You've got to celebrate the people that did the PM with precision and—and balanced the shaft.”

Preventing a breakdown rarely generates the same excitement as rescuing production from an unplanned shutdown. There's no dramatic recovery to announce when a team identifies a developing problem early and corrects it before equipment fails. Management has to make those successes visible.

Kuhn suggests that this also a cultural issue. If the people who rush in during emergencies receive all the recognition, the organization can unintentionally reward the very conditions its reliability program is supposed to eliminate.

Reliability requires more than activity

Across all five scenarios, the tools and processes matter, but their value depends on how people use them.

Collecting data isn't the same as using it. Green KPIs aren't proof of healthy equipment. Root cause investigations don't improve reliability unless teams act on the findings. And celebrating emergency repairs without recognizing preventive work can perpetuate a culture of reactive maintenance.

As Kuhn puts it, he spent years as a manager thinking reliability was primarily about tools and expectations. Eventually, he came to a different conclusion: "It's culture, and that starts with me."

For plant leaders, that means examining not only the results their organizations report, but also the behaviors their management practices encourage. If teams are rewarded for keeping dashboards green, completing investigations or rescuing production from breakdowns, those activities can become the goal.

The real test is whether the work prevents failures and improves equipment performance. Otherwise, it's just putting a party hat on a dumpster fire.

Listen to the full podcast episode!