A multi-criteria decision support framework for sustainable asset management and challenges in its application

Niekamp, Stefanie; Bharadwaj, Ujjwal; Sadhukhan, Jhuma; Chryssanthopoulos, Marios K.

doi:10.1080/21681015.2014.1000401

Cited by 24 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The underlying reason for action in all but one of these models was the degradation of the asset, which would lead to failure if no action was taken. Niekamp et al (2015) is a notable exception because this model supported asset managers in decisions among alternatives. Other reasons for Asset Management actions fall outside the schope of these tools.…”

Section: Lifetime Impact Centred Asset Management To Manage Predictabmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Relatedly, while a large literature exists on the estimation of the remaining useful life (see for example the review by Si et al (2011)) and asset replacement decision making (refer to Das and Sarmah (2010) for a review), little attention has been spent on the last life cycle phase of the assets life: disposal & recycling. Only few authors have addressed this life cycle phase in relation to Asset Management (see for example Niekamp et al (2015) or Korse et al (2016)). …”

Section: Asset Management Takes the Complete Life Cycle Of An Asset Imentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A new method or tool needs to be designed based on the tools and mechanisms described in the literature. This article found that multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) offers a versatile way to deal with a variety of alternatives and conflicting criteria (Brugha, 2004;Niekamp et al, 2015). Therefore, the authors propose to use MCDA as a solution to Identified Problem #2.…”

Section: Initial Solutionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is valuable, as generally, more criteria play a role in decision making than can be incorporated into a decision support tool. For this reason, Niekamp et al (2015) proposed a tool to include criterion desired by the stakeholders. Second, each quadrant offers a strategy to deal with lifetime impacts.…”

Section: Calculation Of the Total Prioritymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Braaksma et al, 2011), risk management (Catrinu and Nordgård, 2011), information communication technologies (e.g. Al-Turki, 2011), the environment (Niekamp et al, 2015) and customer relationships (Jooste and Vlok, 2015). The diverse disciplines need to be considered to create maximum asset value.…”

Section: Alcm Is a Multidisciplinary Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Manoeuvring physical assets into the future

Ruitenburg¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Lifetime Impact Centred Asset Management To Manage Predictabmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Asset Management Takes the Complete Life Cycle Of An Asset Imentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Initial Solutionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Calculation Of the Total Prioritymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Alcm Is a Multidisciplinary Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Manoeuvring physical assets into the future

Ruitenburg¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Systematic assessment of triticale‐based biorefinery strategies: investment decisions for sustainable biorefinery business models

Chambost

Janssen

Stuart

2018

Biofuels Bioprod Bioref

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Strategic investments in biorefinery projects are increasingly being made, and involve non‐traditional decision making, especially considering the technology and market risks involved. From the investor's perspective, the decision‐making process leading to product/process combinations for implementation as a biorefinery to achieve a sustainable business model and good economic returns is not obvious. Typical metrics used for investment decision making have some limitations regarding the recognition of acceptable technology risks relative to economic returns. They often do not appropriately consider factors and analyses related to, for example, environmental impact and the longer term competitive position of new product portfolios. The methodology presented in this article is an approach to identifying a ‘practical’ set of multi‐disciplinary decision‐making criteria to enable the selection of the preferred product/process biorefinery implementation strategy. The case of investment options in the triticale (X Triticosecale Wittmack) biorefinery is used as an example. Through this risk‐based methodology, technology risks as well as economic, environmental, and competitive benefits associated with different business model options are identified. This methodology leads to the development of a series of multi‐criteria decision‐making (MCDM) panels to define a set of practical criteria suitable for a final MCDM for the identification of triticale‐based biorefinery alternatives leading to long‐term and sustainable business models. © 2018 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

show abstract

Modelling to analyse the process and sustainability performance of forestry-based bioenergy systems

Martínez-Hernández

Sadhukhan

Aburto

et al. 2022

Clean Techn Environ Policy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study develops a novel mathematical modelling framework for biomass combined heat and power systems (CHP) that links biomass and process characteristics to sustainability assessment of the life cycle. A total of twenty-nine indicators for the process (four-indicators), economic (five-indicators), environmental (eight-indicators) and social global (five-indicators) and local (seven-indicators) aspects have been analysed for sustainability. These are technological: biomass throughput, electricity and steam generations and CHP efficiency; economic: internal rate of return, capital, operating and feedstock costs and cost of production; environmental: global warming, fossil, land and water use, acidification, urban smog, eutrophication and ecotoxicity potentials; social (global): labour rights and decent work, health & safety, human rights, governance and community infrastructure; social (local): total forest land, direct/indirect jobs, gender equality and energy-water-sanitation access for communities, from biomass characteristics (carbon and hydrogen contents), energy demands and economic parameters. This paper applies the developed methodology to a case study in Mexico. From 12.47 kt/year forestry residue, 1 MWe is generated with an associated low-pressure steam generation of 50 kt/year, at the cost of production of $0.023/kWh. This makes the energy provision “affordable and clean” for marginalised/poor communities (the UN Sustainable Development Goals, SDG7). Bioenergy can curb > 90% of the greenhouse gas emissions and primary energy use, 6 kt CO2 eq and 74 TJ annually. Bioenergy reduces other environmental impacts considerably, water consumption, acidification and eutrophication by 87–53%, and urban smog and ecotoxicity by 29–18%. Bioenergy can improve all five social themes in the Central American cluster countries. In addition to the SDG7, the forestry-based bioenergy system can also achieve the SDG6: "clean water and sanitation for all". Graphical abstract

show abstract

A multi-criteria decision support framework for sustainable asset management and challenges in its application

Cited by 24 publications

References 35 publications

Manoeuvring physical assets into the future

Manoeuvring physical assets into the future

Systematic assessment of triticale‐based biorefinery strategies: investment decisions for sustainable biorefinery business models

Modelling to analyse the process and sustainability performance of forestry-based bioenergy systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About