Over the course of my career, I’ve had the privilege of working with some great leaders, people who truly understand the role of reliability in driving business success.
But I’ve also seen the other side: well-intentioned leaders who purposefully wait too long to act when a defect is detected.
Leadership isn’t tested when everything runs smoothly – it’s tested the moment a defect appears and action is delayed.
These situations are always concerning because by the time the organization realizes what’s happening, the damage is already done to equipment, to production, and sometimes to the credibility of the team.
The issue almost always comes down to a misunderstanding of the P-F Curve, and more importantly, what it means for decision-making.
What Happens When Leaders Wait Too Long
The P-F Curve shows how a defect progresses from Potential Failure (P) to Functional Failure (F).
Here’s the problem: no two curves are alike.
- Some defects progress gradually, giving you weeks or months of warning.
- Others drop off suddenly, going from a minor issue to catastrophic failure in a heartbeat.
When leaders delay action, they’re essentially rolling the dice, assuming the curve will be long and forgiving.
Sometimes they win. But when they lose, the result is unplanned downtime, safety risks, and massive repair costs.
Behavior I’ve Seen That Concerns Me
Over the years, I’ve noticed a few recurring patterns that put organizations at risk when a defect is identified:
1. Delaying the Work Notification
I’ve seen leaders sit on defect data for weeks before even creating a work notification.
Why?
- Some leaders believe they’re managing costs by holding off.
- Others fear adding to the backlog or triggering uncomfortable conversations with operations leaders.
Here’s the reality:
- Will the defect go away on its own? No.
- Will it progress and get worse? Almost certainly.
- Will delaying save money? Rarely and usually at the cost of a much bigger bill later.
If your predictive technology provides a clear, defined action, the clock is already ticking. Waiting just adds unnecessary risk.
2. Waiting to Execute Until It’s Close to Point F
Another common behavior I’ve seen is leaders deliberately waiting until the defect gets closer to Point F before executing the work.
On the surface, this might seem like a way to maximize asset life, but it comes at a steep cost:
- It shrinks the planning window, leaving no time to source specialty parts, secure specialized tools, or schedule skilled labor.
- It forces teams into reactive mode, scrambling to address the defect as it accelerates toward failure.
- It increases the risk of collateral damage, driving up costs and extending downtime.
By starting mitigation work closer to Point P, leaders give their teams time to plan carefully and control the outcome, instead of being forced into crisis management.
3. Ignoring the Value of Failure Mode Validation
When teams wait too long, the failed component is often too damaged to reveal the true failure mode.
This destroys one of the biggest opportunities for improvement:
- Validating the failure mode allows engineers to understand what really caused the defect.
- Without it, teams are left guessing, leading to repeat failures and recurring costs.
4. Undermining Predictive Technology Investments
This one is particularly frustrating.
I’ve seen organizations spend significant money on predictive technologies like vibration analysis, oil analysis, and advanced analytics only to ignore the data until the asset is near failure.
Predictive technology is useless without decisive leadership – it should drive action, not observation.
If you’re going to wait until Point F before acting, why invest in predictive technology at all?
You’re essentially using an expensive tool just to “watch” your assets fail instead of preventing failure altogether… Just “predicting your failures”.
The Few Times Waiting Makes Sense
To be fair, there are limited scenarios where waiting closer to Point F is appropriate:
- Throw-away components where it’s cost-effective to run to failure.
- Low downtime impact situations where production losses are minimal.
But these should be deliberate, data-driven decisions, not a default response or a budgeting shortcut.
The Cultural Message Leaders Send
Waiting to act isn’t just a technical choice – it’s a cultural signal.
- Acting near Point P tells your organization, “We value proactive reliability and long-term solutions.”
- Waiting sends the opposite message: “It’s okay to ignore warning signs, hope for the best, and ignore the actual cause of Point P.”
The best leaders I’ve worked with set the tone by insisting on starting action as close to Point P as possible. They understand that every defect is an opportunity to prevent recurrence and build a more stable, predictable operation.
Key Takeaways for Leaders
From what I’ve seen, the leaders who consistently succeed when defects are detected do three things well:
- Act Quickly: They don’t delay work notifications or hide problems.
- Enable Planning: By acting near Point P, they give their teams time to get the right parts, tools, and people in place.
- Capture Learning: They treat every defect as a learning opportunity, using failure mode validation to drive root cause elimination.
The next time predictive technology flags a defect, ask yourself:
“Am I leading my team to solve this problem for good? Or, am I just rolling the dice and hoping the curve doesn’t drop off too soon?”
Great reliability and production leaders don’t gamble with their assets or their production. They act early and lead by example, turning potential failures into opportunities for lasting improvement and showing everyone the importance of proactive reliability execution.
