Reliability

In practice

The Rotterdam chiller has to be replaced, and somebody has to justify the capital.

1. Over two years, nine breakdown jobs close on that asset. Each closure is coded from the organisation’s own failure catalogue.
2. Seven of the nine carry the same problem code: compressor, high-pressure cut-out.
3. Because everybody codes the same fault the same way, that recurrence is countable rather than remembered.
4. Mean time between failures on the asset has fallen from 140 days to 47.
5. Mean time to repair has risen, because the parts are becoming harder to source.
6. The same coding across the estate shows the pattern is specific to this unit, not to the model.

The capital request stops being “it keeps breaking” and becomes an interval, a trend, a downtime figure and a cost. It also identifies the opposite case: a contractor whose repairs do not hold shows up as the same code returning on the same asset, which is evidence rather than suspicion.

Illustrative walkthrough. Not a customer record.