Determining the most important criteria in maintenance decision making

Abstract

Many maintenance decisions require the evaluation of alternative solutions in terms of complex maintenance criteria such as cost, repairability, reliability and availability requirements. Such problems can be formulated as multi-criteria decision making problems. The relative importance of maintenance criteria is difficult to be assessed, and therefore a sensitivity analysis becomes a necessity. The sensitivity analysis approach presented in this paper reveals some counter-intuitive results and can considerably enhance the application of decision analysis in complex maintenance management.

Exploring maintenance policy selection using the Analytic Hierarchy Process; An application for naval ships

“…The use of MCDM methods has been proposed for maintenance decision making, because decision theory has become a useful tool to many professionals and because many maintenance challenges can be modelled as MCDM problems [12,13].…”

“…Although maintenance is something that should be done in practice, several authors argue that practical studies are still under-represented [10,11] In the 1990s, a novel approach to maintenance decision making emerged. Arguing that decision theory has become a useful tool to many professionals including engineers, and many maintenance challenges can be modelled as multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) problems, the use of MCDM methods has been suggested for maintenance decision making [12,13]. Selecting the right maintenance policy is one of these challenges for which MCDM could be applicable.…”

“…The use of the AHP for maintenance decision making appears to emerge in the second half of the 1990s [13,23,24], when the use of the AHP for engineering applications was already recognized as an effective approach for dealing with a multiple criteria decision problem [25].…”

Data quality assessment of maintenance reporting procedures

“…Table 1 provides an "at a glance" overview of scientific papers that have made use of MCDM techniques for each of these purposes. Bevilacqua and Braglia (2000); Wang et al (2007); Goossens et al, 2015;Labib et al, 1998;Pramod et al, 2007;Shyjith et al, 2008;Tan et al, 2011;Zaim et al, 2012) (Azizi et al, 2014;Ilangkumaran & Kumanan, 2009;Hosseini et al, 2015;Ferdousmakan et al, 2014;Wang et al, 2007;Fouladgar et al, 2012) (Kumar & Maiti, 2012;Shahin et al, 2012;Pourjavad et al, 2013;Zaim et al, 2012) Azadeh et al (2014); Sheikhalishahi (2014) (Ilangkumaran & Kumanan, 2012;Ahmadi et al, 2010) (Zhangqiong & Guozheng , 1999;Li et al, 2007) (Emovon et al , 2015;de et al, 2015c;Monte et al, 2015) Tools and companies Selection (Bertolini et al, 2004;García-Cascales et al, 2009;Ha et al, 2008;Triantaphyllou et al, 1997) (Durán, 2011) (Ha et al, 2008) (dGonçalves et al, 2014…”

Condition Ranking and Rating of Bridges Using Fuzzy Logic

“…Further, the items which would require rigorous testing, both at site and in the laboratory using sophisticated instrumentation are grouped under detailed assessment. The comparison matrices for different components are formed (Triantaphyllou et al, 1997;Sasmal et al 2006). The relative importance of any item with respect to the other, under any layer, may change depending on location, societal importance and decision objectives.…”