Reliability-Engineered Design (RED) is potentially the single most important factor in two areas: When considering asset purchases and when considering systems as a whole or in part. We will look at asset purchases in a future issue, focusing now on systems as a whole or in part. In power systems RED is no longer a theoretical ideal—it is a practical necessity in an era defined by grid complexity, decarbonization, and increasing demand. Yet despite advances in analytics, monitoring, and standards such as IEEE guidelines and NFPA codes, many utilities still struggle to fully embed reliability into system design. Three major barriers consistently stand in the way: organizational silos, data limitations, and short term economic pressures.

As the grid continues to evolve, utilities that successfully integrate reliability into design will be better positioned to deliver safe, resilient, and cost-effictive power in an increasingly complex energy landscape.

Organizational Silos and Cultural Resistance

One of the most persistent barriers is the fragmentation of responsibilities within utilities and engineering organizations. Planning, design, operations, and maintenance teams often operate independently, each with different priorities and metrics for success. RED requires a lifecycle approach—where asset performance, failure modes, and maintenance strategies are considered from the earliest design stages through to decommissioning.

However, in many organizations, design engineers are incentivized to minimize upfront capital costs, while operations teams are left to manage long-term reliability risks. This disconnect leads to suboptimal decisions, such as under-specifying equipment or overlooking maintainability considerations. Cultural resistance compounds the issue: adopting RED often requires new workflows, cross-functional collaboration, and a shift away from legacy practices that may be deeply entrenched.

Breaking down these silos demands leadership commitment and structural change. Integrated asset management frameworks and cross disciplinary teams are essential to ensure that reliability is not treated as an afterthought, but as a core design principle.

Inadequate and Fragmented Data

Reliability engineering is fundamentally data driven. Techniques such as failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA), condition-based maintenance, and predictive analytics depend on accurate, high-quality data across the asset lifecycle. Unfortunately, many utilities face significant data challenges.

Legacy systems often store information in disparate formats across multiple platforms, making it difficult to create a unified view of asset health and performance. Incomplete failure histories, inconsistent data standards, and limited real-time monitoring further hinder effective analysis. Even where advanced tools exist, poor data quality can undermine their value.

The transition toward digital substations and grid modernization initiatives offers an opportunity to address this barrier, but it also introduces new complexities. Integrating data from intelligent electronic devices (IEDs), sensors, and distributed energy resources requires robust data governance and interoperability standards.

Without reliable data, RED becomes guesswork rather than science. Utilities must invest not only in data collection technologies, but also in data management practices that ensure accuracy, consistency, and accessibility.

Short-Term Economic Pressures

Perhaps the most challenging barrier is the tension between long-term reliability and short term financial constraints. RED often involves higher upfront costs—whether through more robust equipment, redundancy, or advanced monitoring systems. While these investments typically reduce lifecycle costs and improve system resilience, they can be difficult to justify in environments driven by annual budgets, regulatory pressures, and ratepayer scrutiny.

Regulatory frameworks can inadvertently reinforce this short-term focus. Utilities may be rewarded for minimizing capital expenditures rather than optimizing total cost of ownership. In some cases, the benefits of improved reliability—such as reduced outage frequency or enhanced safety—are not fully captured in financial metrics, making it harder to build a compelling business case.

To overcome this barrier, utilities must adopt more sophisticated valuation models that account for risk, resilience, and the societal cost of outages. Performance-based regulation and reliability incentives can also play a critical role in aligning financial objectives with engineering best practices.

Reliability Engineered Design represents a paradigm shift in how power systems are conceived and managed. Yet its adoption is constrained by organizational silos, data challenges, and economic pressures. Addressing these barriers requires more than technical solutions—it demands cultural change, strategic investment, and regulatory alignment. As the grid continues to evolve, utilities that successfully integrate reliability into design will be better positioned to deliver safe, resilient, and cost-effective power in an increasingly complex energy landscape.

Alan M Ross
CRL, CMRP
Managing Editor at APC Media
Technical Director
Alan has decades of experience in the power systems industry and is one of the greatest reliability experts out there.

This article was originally published in the May 2026 issue of the Reliability Engineered Design magazine.

View Magazine