If you could choose a fictional character to be your Manager of Engineering and Reliability, who would it be? Superman might give you the muscle to move mountains. The Flash could help you blaze through projects in record time. But my pick might surprise you: I’d choose Goldilocks.
Goldilocks is all about finding the balance that’s “just right.” Whether it’s porridge that’s too hot or too cold, a chair too hard or too soft, or a bed too firm or too squishy, Goldilocks is focused on optimal conditions — a concept that translates perfectly into good engineering and maintenance practices.
Let me explain by connecting her philosophy to two foundational ideas in our industry: Reliability-Centered Maintenance (RCM) and Optimum Reference State (ORS).
Reliability-Centered Maintenance (RCM): The Goldilocks Way
RCM is a structured process designed to determine the right level of maintenance effort needed to achieve the desired reliability — not necessarily the highest level of reliability at any cost. Too often, people assume RCM’s goal is to maximize reliability as much as possible. But that’s not always practical or economical. Sometimes, a moderate level of reliability is exactly what’s needed based on an asset’s criticality, the acceptable level of risk, and the resources available.
Think about it like Goldilocks at the breakfast table: she didn’t demand the hottest porridge, nor did she settle for the coldest. She picked the one that was just right for her needs at the time.
| Maintenance Strategy | Action Required | RCM-based Objective |
|---|---|---|
| Run-to-failure (reactive) | Repair or replace upon failure | Noncritical. Costs to control or detect failure exceeds benefits. |
| Scheduled discard or restoration (preventive) | Repair or replace on time or in cycles | Asset has a well-documented MTBF and a small standard deviation. |
| Protective condition monitoring | Employs sensors and monitors to automate shutdown of equipment | Self-preservation – avoid injury, environmental consequence, and/or collateral damage. |
| Reactive condition-based maintenance (predictive) | Employs condition monitoring to detect early stage failures. Replacement or repair is scheduled on-condition. | Asset fails randomly. Critical nature justifies early detection techniques. |
| Proactive condition-based maintenance | Condition monitoring detects the presence of failure root causes, enabling preemptive correction | Objective is to reduce the failure rate for a given time period. |
| Precision maintenance | Precision methods used to install and/or adjust machines | Reduce early life failures. |
| Redesign | Changes in hardware, loading, design and/or procedures | Enhance inherent reliability. |
| Redundancy | Deploy active shared-load or stand-by redundant systems | Mission-critical assets for which no other approach is acceptable. |
Desired mode of machinery failure: 1) Fail slowly 2) Fail noisily 3) Give off many easily detectable warning signs during failure
Similarly, in RCM we ask,“What is the minimum level of maintenance necessary to achieve the desired level of reliability, while maintaining an acceptable level of risk?” If Goldilocks tested the porridge every minute with a thermometer, she'd waste time and energy. If she never tested it at all, she’d risk burning her mouth. The right maintenance interval — like the right sampling — lands somewhere in between.
Optimum Reference State (ORS): Choosing What’s “Just Right”
ORS is about identifying the best conditions, practices, and specifications to maximize equipment life and reliability, without falling into the trap of over-engineering or underperforming.
Take lubricant selection as an example. You could use a basic economy oil, which might be fine for non-critical assets but could leave more valuable machines vulnerable. Alternatively, you could go all-out with premium synthetic oils across the board, but that would likely waste money on applications that don't need that level of performance. The most effective solution is usually a carefully selected mix — using economy oils where appropriate and synthetic oils where truly needed — a solution that Goldilocks herself would endorse.
Oil Analysis Frequency: Sampling with Sense
Goldilocks' mindset also applies perfectly to oil analysis frequency. Different equipment types call for different approaches:
- Some may require no sampling at all, operating reliably without intervention.
- Others may benefit from continuous monitoring, especially in critical applications.
- Many will fall somewhere in between, needing periodic sampling at sensible intervals.
The goal is to monitor often enough to catch issues early, but not so often that valuable resources are wasted. For instance, a small, non-critical gearbox may operate for years with minimal oil analysis, while critical turbines might justify constant monitoring for parameters like ferrous density, viscosity, particle count, and moisture. As a rule of thumb, oil sampling intervals should generally be no more than 50% of the known P-F interval if sufficient data is available.
Goldilocks would naturally avoid spending too much on unnecessary monitoring while making sure important machines were well protected — aiming, as always, for “just right.”
Filter Selection: Not Too Fine, Not Too Coarse
Selecting the right filter mirrors the Goldilocks approach perfectly. Gearboxes, for example, may only need an ISO 4406 cleanliness level around 18/16, while hydraulic systems often demand much cleaner oil, closer to 14/11 — which is about 16 times cleaner.
The choice of filter also depends on how the system operates. A one-pass filter, which has a single chance to capture contaminants, should have a high efficiency (high beta ratio). A multi-pass filter system, where oil cycles through the filter multiple times, may allow for slightly lower efficiency.
Goldilocks wouldn’t waste money on ultra-fine filters for simple systems, nor would she skimp on critical applications. She would select filters tailored to each system’s real-world needs.
Accessorizing Equipment: Smart Upgrades
When accessorizing or modifying equipment, the goal is the same: select what is necessary to meet the reliability objectives, but avoid overdoing it. Adding sight glasses, magnetic plugs, quick connects, or sampling ports can all improve lubrication and inspection practices, but only if they make sense for the specific application and environment. Much like Goldilocks tried several beds but only settled into the one that was truly comfortable and fit her needs, she would carefully choose equipment upgrades that truly added value — and leave unnecessary extras behind.
Building the Right Team
Finally, Goldilocks would know that staffing a reliability program is about balance, too. She wouldn’t fill the department entirely with inexperienced new hires, nor would she staff it solely with highly degreed engineers with little practical experience.
Instead, she would build a team with the right blend of skills: experienced mechanics and millwrights (preferably with ICML or similar certifications), seasoned engineers with hands-on expertise, and carefully selected new hires who could be developed into future leaders. A team that, like everything else, is “just right” for the needs of the organization.
Final Thought
Goldilocks may not have Superman’s strength or the Flash’s speed, but she has something even more valuable for reliability leadership: the instinct to avoid doing too much or too little — and the wisdom to aim for “just right.” That’s exactly the mindset needed to lead a world-class maintenance program.
About the Author
Retired after nearly 39 years at The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Jerry has held several corporate and plant positions in engineering, maintenance, and production. For the last 12 years, he w...
Read More