Typically, a repair is counted as successful when the equipment is back in service and appears to function normally. But if this is the correct approach, why do the same failures often recur? The answer is you need a different way of defining success.
Let’s use an example from outside of work. Suppose you check the air in your tires, and you find one is 10 lb low. If you fill the tire back up, does that mean you’ve fixed the problem? Or are you going to check that tire a few times over the next couple of weeks to determine whether it can hold pressure?
Now think of equipment repairs. Suppose several cables had to be replaced and nobody knows what caused the failures. Solution? Take baseline cable testing data, schedule testing at equal intervals then trend the results. If possible, install a power monitor to help identify cable-killing conditions.
You can extend this concept to any equipment. If a motor must be replaced, what tests should you perform the day after, one week after, and one month after replacement?