You raise a couple of interesting points there, Kevin ... that are worthy of a new thread, I would have thought.
So why not open a new thread, and let's have the debate!
Personally, for many years (as in, forty or so) I have been a great supporter of PM (and I mean, PM everything); later on (the last twenty years or so) I have moved on to advocate "risk-based PM" (
aka the Risk-Based Model). However, my mind always remains open for
reasoned argument.
As a historical note, when I started working in army hospitals in the early 1970's the basic equipment support policy was "repair as (when) necessary". There was also an annual inspection for functionality of all the kit by an outside inspector from "Head Quarters"; basically we (the resident techs) had to demonstrate that the kit worked. Then just about the time I started in earnest, we had to begin doing (what we referred to as) "quarterly inspections" (what we would later call PM). Later on (after the army), having numerous opportunities to set up equipment maintenance from First Principles (more or less), I tried various methods of supprting equipment; but always ran some sort of PM programme. Later still, after becoming aquainted with US methods of biomedical engineering, I learned about the Risk-Based approach to PM, and became a confirmed covert to this (to my mind) rational, sensible way of doing things. By the way, perhaps it's worth mentioning that I also attended to equipment repairs (as well as PM); but it should be said that I don't remember too many "surprises" (that is, thanks to our PM programmes, we knew our equipment domain almost as well as a shepherd knows his flock!
