Executive Summary
According to most readers, the success of an oil analysis program depends far more on the expertise, attention to detail and oversight of the end-user than on whether the service is complimentary or included with the lubricant cost. While built-in oil analysis can encourage participation and sampling consistency, the program is only effective if results are properly reviewed and acted upon. Long-term success is driven by professional oversight, diagnostic depth and technical independence, and third-party labs can often provide greater objectivity and credibility. The most important part of oil analysis is the skill of the person who takes ownership of the program.

Q.1. When oil analysis is provided complimentary and/or built into the price of lubricants, typically seen as part of major lubricant brand offerings, are end-users more or less likely to have a successful oil analysis program? Please explain your answer.

When oil analysis is provided complimentary or bundled into the lubricant price, end-users are generally less likely to achieve a mature, sustainable and high-value oil analysis program—unless very specific conditions are met. The reason is not analytical capability, but human behavior, ownership and program governance.

In my view, complimentary oil analysis encourages greater participation. However, its true effectiveness depends on how well analysis results are managed and translated into action.

No, end-users are more likely to have a successful oil analysis program if the analysis service is built into the lubricant’s cost.

In general it is valued less by the end-user—irrespective of how nice the reports are. Oil analysis and oil-based condition monitoring (CM) are two different things and need to be managed as part of an educated strategic approach to reliability management. Also at some level having the supplier perform the oil analysis weakens any technical solution that suggests top up, resample or oil change required. Personally I think oil companies should either see used oil analysis (UOA) as a paid service or get out of the market. Unfortunately, though, for a while having UOA free at the point of sale has become the norm and has negatively affected the reputation of UOA as a viable and strategically valuable technical service.

I feel they are more likely to have successful programs if they are offered as a bundle. This bundle should include support for recommendations and interpretations from the supplier as well.

The person in charge of the oil analysis program will determine how successful the oil analysis program is. The complimentary-or-not difference is not the key factor; it depends on the person in charge and their attention to detail.

I would say no. In my experience the people on site that are directly involved with the program are the ones who dictate the success of the program.

Yes, when oil analysis is included in the price of the lubricants customers are more likely to sample regularly, which is necessary for getting a good picture of the health of their equipment. They are also more likely to change the lubricant based on oil analysis results rather than just the calendar or number of equipment hours.

Less likely, in my opinion. You get what you pay for. The oil company (who sells oil) is providing a service free of charge to tell you the quality or longevity of their product. I would tend to believe that there would be a higher motivation to condemn the oil and replace it than to filter and keep using. A third-party lab with no vested interest in the quality or longevity of the oil will provide a more honest view.

From my experience, the customer is more likely to participate in the oil analysis program; thus, they have more potential for success. However, if the testing is not done by a third-party lab (no affiliation with selling “party” of lubricants), I have seen where data was skewed in favor of the selling “party” lubricant brand and not kept “neutral.”

More likely. It takes the burden of collecting samples and determining what tests to run away from the end-user and back to the lubricant company, who likely has a better idea of how to take samples, what to test for and how to interpret the results.

It depends on the tests offered and the end-user’s understanding of and use of the information.

Neither. End-users who have successfully used oil analysis programs have buy-in from the most senior corporate engineers to the maintenance technicians performing the sampling, and the plant engineers and maintenance supervisors in-between interpreting results and choosing to act on the interpretation. If anyone in the chain acts apathetically (irregular sampling, incomplete testing matrix, no action after reporting, etc.), then there is no lower or higher chance of running a successful used oil program simply by including it as part of the cost.

I don’t think so. When the oil analysis is complimentary, they don’t necessarily see the value in the service. I can’t count the number of customers that received results and filed them away without taking any action. Also, the cost has to be absorbed or passed on as higher price on the lubricants.

Probably not. OEMs have their own agendas, such as increasing the frequency of change-outs.

It all depends on the size of the company and the value they expect from an oil analysis program to predict equipment reliability. It would be ideal if oil suppliers provided this service for free or included the cost in the contract.
 
Less likely to have a successful oil analysis program. Samples are pulled and submitted, and the results are, at best, casually reviewed. Corrective action is viewed as interesting information. Without analytical involvement of a certified or knowledgeable professional the data collected is seldom used. Professional oversite must be a key plank in any successful oil analysis program. 

More successful by a small amount. Management is more accepting of an extra work effort when the argument is made “we have already paid for it,” There is still going to be the challenge of doing one more thing in an already full schedule to overcome, but there is now impetus to push the issue because of management support.

It takes a dedicated person to oversee the analysis program to realize the full benefits of such a program. Those that have such a person the benefits and results are very advantageous!

Depends on the sales representatives’ understanding of the value of the tool and his/her impetus to push the client to leverage the service to the client’s advantage. Often I see inadequate test scopes provided when it’s free making the data irrelevant. Also I have seen missed opportunities to safely extend drain intervals if it resulted in reduced sales of product.

Less likely, because there is little value.

The only right way to use fluid analysis is to do it yourself. Going forward, it’s silly to send samples out for testing. 1.) Time is of the essence, now that artificial intelligence (AI) has arrived in spades (i.e., the end of 2024 marked a major on-switch that will forever be in play, for good or bad). Careful planning with bullet proof precision in crafting algorithms will determine outcomes. 2.) In-house personnel will learn the best way to approach it. In time it will be less costly, as well. 3.) Those who have stationary lubricated assets will particularly do well because vibration and other sensors’ data can be viewed ensemble for more accurate results and observations. 4.) Please consider ditching the term “oil analysis.” It has a bygone feel to it, and no longer is it appropriate when non-hydrocarbon lubes are referenced. “Fluid analysis” is the 21st century term.

Absolutely. Oil analysis is an integral part of a successful preventive maintenance program for many, but it is not the only part.

In general, yes, since the sample bottles/kits are provided and there is no cost to the end-user other than the manpower and time to collect and ship the samples. However, sometimes the reports are ignored. If the end-user is actually paying for the oil analysis, they may pay more attention to the reports that come back. It’s related to whether the facility has a person dedicated to lubrication management.

I don’t think the analysis being free or whether the customer pays for the analysis has much impact on the success of an oil analysis program. I have seen many reports stuffed in file cabinets and never reviewed. I suspect oil analysis programs are more successful when a plant has been impacted by a machine failure due to oil.

I believe they are more likely, but only if they have competent professionals to understand the data and look at trends as well as how they can use the date to extend drains and anticipate problems.

In our case, we already have an established oil analysis program, so no. If we were starting out from scratch, then I would say it would increase the likelihood of a successful program. There are considerations however, like availability of resources required to collect and analyze samples.

End-users are not automatically more likely to have a successful oil analysis program simply because the analysis is complimentary or built into the lubricant price. In many cases, success actually depends more on how the program is implemented, supported, and used than on whether the tests themselves are “free.” Complimentary oil analysis can either improve success or undermine it, depending on several operational and behavioral factors.

No. Oil analyses provided complementary by the lube manufacturer address the oil quality and performance, but rarely the machine condition.

Questionable, but rather less likely because 1.) vendor results come too late especially in case of system failure and 2.) vendor results can be less trustable as vendor’s interests may diverge from end-user’s interests.

The complimentary oil analysis could have a positive impact or a negative impact. Positive if the machines have no serious issues and results are normal. Negative as these tests provided are basic so the end-users may not be finding out the real issues creeping up.

Not at all. Lubricant suppliers cannot see problems which are due to their products.

The success of the program is dependent on the end-users doing part of the work, i.e., sampling correctly, submitting timely manner proper sample data, etc. When a free service is provided, it takes away some of the perceived value of the service and success will suffer because of this.

If this is the new contract, and the plant is using oil analysis for the first time, and the lubricant supplier suggested including it, the program is less likely to be successful. This is because there will be a lower commitment to study to understand the results. If the plant knows it needs it and has asked for it as part of the contract, it is more likely to succeed. 
 
They are less likely to have a successful oil analysis program because the targeted parameters considered are mostly based on oil quality (acceptance tests mainly).

Complimentary or built-in oil analysis can increase participation and sampling frequency, but it doesn’t inherently ensure a successful oil analysis program. Long-term success depends on diagnostic depth, technical independence and a strong understanding of both the capabilities and limitations of oil analysis. In many cases independent oil analysis provides greater objectivity, credibility and technical rigor—particularly for mature reliability programs.

End-users are less likely to have a successful oil analysis program because oil analysis is not the main activity of the major lubricant brand and they are generally not well equipped to perform oil analysis as a dedicated lab.

This depends very much on the application. Analysis is used for units that are very expensive. For smaller oil fillings or inexpensive units, this is less likely. The larger the filling volume, the more likely it is that analyses will be carried out. Here, the aim is very often to keep the fillings in use for a long time, i.e., to prevent premature replacement.

In my view, there is no direct connection between the two points. It mostly depends on the department manager at the end-user and the supplier’s customer service representative. Smaller suppliers can also offer free oil analysis. The most important tool for a successful oil analysis program is communication between the supplier and the end customer, as well as the development of expertise on both sides.

The success or failure will depend on the customer to a big extent. 

Most commonly end-users are less concerned about it. This is my experience. In general, the end-user has not a clear picture about all the benefits that can be obtained with a proper oil analysis program.

When oil analysis is provided free or bundled with lubricants, end-users are more likely to run a successful program. Free access lowers cost barriers and encourages regular participation, producing better data for maintenance decisions. Success still depends on proper interpretation and acting on the results, but overall, complimentary analysis improves adoption and program effectiveness.

More likely as they see it as service for free.

To me, the probability of success is reduced because implementing an oil analysis program without training and merely as an option cannot be successful.

A definition for “successful oil analysis program” is unfortunately not provided. Success should be that such a program is fully implemented in the company’s processes (sampling, measures followed by analytical report, quality management) providing reliability, longevity and efficiency in terms of materials, time and costs. A more successful oil analysis program is likely as the service paid is linked to lubrication performance, not solely to the lubricant itself. Other contributing issues could be guarantees shifting from the operator to the lubricant provider.

Sometimes “free stuff” is wasted due to lack of skin in the game.

In order to reduce costs, the analysis by the end-users are also reduced.

Have you ever utilized a commercial lab for oil analysis?
Yes 93%
No 7%
Based on an informal poll sent to 15,000 TLT readers.
End-users are generally less likely to have a truly successful oil analysis program when the service is provided complimentary or bundled with the lubricant—unless the program is actively managed and technically driven.

It would be senseless for end-users not to have an oil analysis program if the oil analysis is very affordable.

Likely less. End-users may not look at reports.

More likely, in my opinion. How is having additional relevant information going to negatively affect the program?

Yes. If oil analysis is provided at no additional cost, engineers are more likely to consider using it casually and try oil analysis without hesitation.

If they are purchasing the oil analysis kits this commits them to following a program due to the added investment in their part. Purchasing over giving away will allow the end-user to appreciate and follow an analysis program better.

It varies. Some companies run free oil analysis programs very effectively, but this only works if they have skilled maintenance and diagnostic staff. Without that expertise, the value of the analysis often drops. When users pay for oil analysis, they are usually more motivated to use the results properly, which can lead to better program success.

Yes. By the very premise of the question, the more information the end-user gets from the manufacturer, the more accurate their analysis is, potentially. That said, problematic data from the manufacturer can also skew the end-user’s analysis or make it more challenging for the end-user to accurately interpret their analysis results.

End-users are generally less likely to have a successful oil analysis program when it is provided free or bundled with lubricant pricing. Because it is seen as a “free extra,” it is often undervalued, not well managed and weakly tied to maintenance decisions. Successful programs usually occur when the end-user owns the program, defines clear objectives and treats oil analysis as a critical reliability tool rather than a complimentary service.

More. The offer comes with a consistent approach, a set of test protocols that are trusted, in which the party offering the analyses has trust and experience. Ad hoc oil analyses can explore a wider range of protocols but often require base line analysis to build understanding. With a built-in program, such base line insights are typically already known.

Less, as it is seen as being of no value when given away for free, rather than managed by the lubricant supplier for a fee. Also, there is a perceived bias to some of these programs since the one paying for it has a vested interest in selling more oil.

I’d say it’s 50/50. A lot of companies don’t really manage a program well.

Q.2. What is the most common misunderstanding end-users/consumers have about commercial oil analysis laboratories?

Misconception. Think that data may not be reliable as they provide for lower cost.

“The lab will tell us what to do—and if nothing is flagged, everything is fine.” This is, by far, the single most common and damaging misunderstanding end-users have about commercial oil analysis laboratories. It leads to misplaced expectations, poor program design and missed failure prevention opportunities.

Many users assume that sending a sample to a lab means they’ll receive a clear interpretation of analysis results with maintenance instructions as this is often not the case.

Most end-users do not well understand the tests details, reason and data. Like medical tests, they depend upon results presented as red, green or yellow, or pass/fail summaries. Suggested corrective actions should be included in the oil analysis summary.

The oil analysis laboratories are not spying on customers. They run the tests they are asked to run. They do not care what oils they are testing (i.e., competitive or not).

Personally, the biggest misunderstanding I have seen since I’ve begun to do oil analysis for our mill is that the lab will let you know if your cleanliness is good, bad or in caution. A lot of people don’t understand that these targets are contingent upon the individual piece of equipment and are set by the customer not the lab.

That elemental analysis and viscometrics give a complete picture of the health of the equipment.

Do you believe most oil analysis end-users/consumers know which exact test methods they need to have run on a sample of used oil?
Yes 8%
No 92%
Based on an informal poll sent to 15,000 TLT readers.

The most common misunderstanding is that commercial oil analysis laboratories diagnose and fix problems for the customer.

The lab will tell you what to do and how to have a better program. You or the lab may set warning limits on some of the results, but you still have to read and understand the oil reports that come back. Reading and, more importantly, understanding the trends and nuances of the report is on the end-user.

They do not understand what they do and how to interpret the results.

They should send the oil sample on the day it was taken rather than save a bunch of samples for a single shipment to the lab. They also don’t understand that many oil analyses are not seen by a real person, but algorithms are used unless the results are critical.

That they are all large laboratories.

The biggest myth or misunderstanding is that we are not testing the condition of oil but health of equipment and its operating condition.

They get lab ideas about oil test result.

That the service is either too expensive, or they simply don’t understand the tests themselves and the benefits of each.

I don’t generally think there are misunderstandings other than what the cost of a qualified lubricant and additive technology costs to validate and the value seen through that.

While end-users do understand that oil analysis delivers return on investment (ROI) in terms of maintaining equipment health, there isn’t a good way to quantify the ROI. Many labs have tried.

Laboratory is accredited to international standards.
 
The lab cannot make an oil analysis program successful without the consumers’ buy-in.

One test will tell you everything you need to know about the oil tested. Often the tests give you only part of the information and the user needs to determine the conclusion with the data.

That the analysis “sees” everything and can accurately predict potential failures and/or that the lab promotes unnecessary sampling intervals.

Getting all the information on the sample to the lab.

The most common misunderstanding is that end-users expect oil analysis to provide definitive and immediate results for all equipment issues, whereas in reality, oil analysis is a diagnostic and preventive tool that depends on multiple factors, a significant portion of which is related to how the lubricant is used and maintained. Users may also be unaware of the repeatability and reproducibility differences in results, which are very important and can be decisive. 

That the results on the oil sample is the only information that matters and forget about the status of the machine it is lubricating. Changing out the oil doesn’t always fix a machine that is having problems. There are many other factors to assess for the total picture.

They can’t catch errant results and the service is impersonal.

End-users see oil analysis as a cost and not a savings. Successful oil analysis programs do pay off. If it isn’t saving you money, you’re not doing it correctly.

How are “alarm limits” set up at commercial oil analysis labs for results?
OEM specifications         21%
Rate of change algorithm 12%
Historical data/statistical methods 19%
Combination of all of the above 79%
Based on an informal poll sent to 15,000 TLT readers. Total exceeds 100% because respondents were allowed to choose more than one answer.

The most common understanding end-users/consumer have is that the limits used by these labs may be different from that of the manufacturer. Additionally, not all commercial labs can run all oil products.

I think a common misunderstanding is that they’re all similar. Until you research their test methodologies and packages, analysis/alarming methods, reporting format, etc., then you will find some major differences. Also the additional support services offered such as training and other reliability services can vary quite a bit.

The single most common misunderstanding end-users have about commercial oil analysis laboratories is the belief that the lab is responsible for diagnosing machine problems and making maintenance decisions when in reality, the lab primarily produces data, not decisions. This misunderstanding shows up across industries, lubricant suppliers and lab types and is at the root of many disappointing oil analysis programs.

Not providing enough equipment and lubricant information for the analyst to make a proper recommendation.

They think that these laboratories can find all kinds of contaminants and their sources and can guess the cause of all problems in the system.

End-users don’t understand what the data on oil analysis means and rely solely on the laboratory’s analyst, who invariably sits in an office far away from where the action is and has no feel for that particular plant.

Biggest misunderstanding is the “what next” question. How do they react to a report telling them there is a problem on the sampled equipment? Fault finding\troubling the reported problem is a big gap for most users.

Most end-users do not understand how precise laboratory equipment is or can be and don’t have up-to-par sampling procedures and practices. If a subpar sample is submitted, then the lab can only simply provide details about what is in the sample container, and not how the sample was collected. Bad samples = bad results = potential for increased costs/wastes.

End-users lacking tribological education tend to receive the analysis report without questioning results.

To think that the lab can tell everything about the sample.

Most of them would think it’s just a simple “good” or “bad” answer.

On the international marine end, customers/end-users always think oil analysis is cheap service.

That the result ranking provided by the lab is a perfect indication of the condition of the oil. So if the result is an excellent, good, fair or bad, there is the tendency to do nothing if a fair result comes back. 
 
Most common misunderstandings are: 1.) Since it is a service industry, the price of the samples can be negotiated to the fullest extent. 2.) Early signals may be ignored if the machines do not have detectable problems. They misunderstand that oil analysis can identify issues well before functional failure occurs. 3.) If a machine fails after receiving a normal sample test result, the problem might be attributed to lab analysts or the sampling procedure. Catastrophic failures are often not taken into consideration.

That oil analysis wastes money.

Alert means change oil.

With commercial oil laboratories, the results and evaluations depend on how good their standards are. If recipe adjustments have been made by manufacturers and the standards have not been adjusted, this leads to misinterpretations. Help is also available here in problem cases—but the manufacturers’ laboratories are better in this regard, as they also know the formulas.

End-users/consumers believe that laboratories can provide results on (continued) usability without knowing the fresh oil or the application in which the oil is used.

Sometimes they assume that lubricant producer will not give all the info about lubricant performance attending that they have important interest on that.

The most common misunderstanding is that oil analysis alone prevents failures. Its value depends on proper sampling, correct interpretation and taking appropriate maintenance actions.

Checking the oil, instead of checking the application.

Commercial labs don’t understand their equipment and the conditions it operates under. Commercial labs are not utilizing latest technologies such as AI.

End-users do not value the diagnostic information included into the oil analysis report, as they lack knowledge and training to understand individual methods, standards, limits/values. This leads to commercial pressure and comparisons, which are not correct.

Choosing a lab based solely on the cost of providing services.

Reports are to be understood as recommendation for oil/machinery maintenance. The operator should know his machinery best, hence reports should not be accepted unquestioningly. A single sample analysis does not tell a lot. Important are regular samples which depict trends over time, hence allow a better monitoring of the oil/machinery.

They do not know how to interpret the results into action items.

The most common misunderstanding is that end-users/consumers quite often do not understand what the results of the oil analyses tell (and not tell), and that they often do not know which oil analysis methods would be most suitable for their purpose but believe in the results without knowing the real purpose and the restrictions of the analyses.

The laboratory will tell us exactly what is wrong with the machine and what to do about it.

That the process is the same at all labs, as well as the fact that they are using the correct test protocol for their equipment.

The oil analysis labs do not have in-depth knowledge of the formulation and is not able to give a detail analysis of the oil condition.

What viscosity actually is. More importantly, methodology to recording representative measurements during experiments.

End-users think the lab will provide answers to everything.

To avoid analysis for the sake of purity.

I’m not sure, but I imagine the standards are oftentimes difficult to follow consistently from lab to lab. End-users without sufficient technical expertise can also misunderstand the expectations from measurement standards and lab analysis results.

The most common misunderstanding is that the oil analysis lab is responsible for the program’s success. In reality, the lab only provides test results; the end-user must ensure proper sampling, correct context and take action based on the data.

End-users often misunderstand how much of a sample’s total turnaround time from sample to report is impacted by getting the sample ready for shipping on site, and depending on the shipping method, transit time.

That they are third-party and have no bias regarding interpretation of the results.

End-users do not fully understand the best utilization a commercial oil analysis laboratory and what that means to their bottom line when utilized properly. Most end-users underestimate the value of working with a team that is working to provide them with quality data to make quality decision with.

The accuracy of the analysis is not high.

Not being able to interpret results on a chemical level, i.e., knowing what causes aluminum to be present, or where boron comes from.

Editor’s Note: Sounding Board is based on an informal poll sent to 15,000 TLT readers. Views expressed are those of the respondents and do not reflect the opinions of the Society of Tribologists and Lubrication Engineers. STLE does not vouch for the technical accuracy of opinions expressed in Sounding Board, nor does inclusion of a comment represent an endorsement of the technology by STLE.