IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/reensy/v142y2015icp31-41.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Goossens, Adriaan J.M.
  • Basten, Rob J.I.

Abstract

In this paper we investigate maintenance policy selection (MPS) through the use of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). A maintenance policy is a policy that dictates which parameter triggers a maintenance action. In practice, selecting the right maintenance policy appears to be a difficult decision. We investigate MPS for naval ships, but our results have wider applicability. For our study we cooperate with the owner and operator of the ships, as well as with a shipbuilder and an original equipment manufacturer of naval ships. We apply a structured five step approach to obtain the relevant criteria that may make one policy preferable over another. The criteria are drawn from both literature and a series of interviews at several navy related companies and are structured into a hierarchy of criteria usable with the AHP. Additionally, we organize three workshops at the three different companies to test the AHP-based MPS approach in practice. We conclude that the AHP is well suited for maintenance policy selection in this broad setting, and that it provides a structured and detailed approach for MPS. Adding to that, it facilitates discussions during and after the sessions, creating a better understanding of the policy selection process.

Suggested Citation

  • Goossens, Adriaan J.M. & Basten, Rob J.I., 2015. "Exploring maintenance policy selection using the Analytic Hierarchy Process; An application for naval ships," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 31-41.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:reensy:v:142:y:2015:i:c:p:31-41
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2015.04.014
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095183201500126X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ress.2015.04.014?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vargas, Luis G., 1990. "An overview of the analytic hierarchy process and its applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 2-8, September.
    2. Ernest H. Forman & Saul I. Gass, 2001. "The Analytic Hierarchy Process---An Exposition," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 49(4), pages 469-486, August.
    3. Robin P. Nicolai & Rommert Dekker, 2008. "Optimal Maintenance of Multi-component Systems: A Review," Springer Series in Reliability Engineering, in: Complex System Maintenance Handbook, chapter 11, pages 263-286, Springer.
    4. JosÉ Figueira & Salvatore Greco & Matthias Ehrogott, 2005. "Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys," International Series in Operations Research and Management Science, Springer, number 978-0-387-23081-8, January.
    5. Khairy A. H. Kobbacy & D. N. Prabhakar Murthy, 2008. "Complex System Maintenance Handbook," Springer Series in Reliability Engineering, Springer, number 978-1-84800-011-7, June.
    6. Tinga, Tiedo, 2010. "Application of physical failure models to enable usage and load based maintenance," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 95(10), pages 1061-1075.
    7. T. Tinga, 2013. "Principles of Loads and Failure Mechanisms," Springer Series in Reliability Engineering, Springer, edition 127, number 978-1-4471-4917-0, June.
    8. Liliane Pintelon & Alejandro Parodi-Herz, 2008. "Maintenance: An Evolutionary Perspective," Springer Series in Reliability Engineering, in: Complex System Maintenance Handbook, chapter 2, pages 21-48, Springer.
    9. Bernard Roy, 2005. "Paradigms and Challenges," International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, in: Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys, chapter 0, pages 3-24, Springer.
    10. Waeyenbergh, Geert & Pintelon, Liliane, 2002. "A framework for maintenance concept development," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(3), pages 299-313, June.
    11. Gits, C. W., 1992. "Design of maintenance concepts," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 217-226, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Poppe, Joeri & Basten, Rob J.I. & Boute, Robert N. & Lambrecht, Marc R., 2017. "Numerical study of inventory management under various maintenance policies," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 262-273.
    2. Syan, Chanan S. & Ramsoobag, Geeta, 2019. "Maintenance applications of multi-criteria optimization: A review," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 190(C), pages 1-1.
    3. Li, He & Teixeira, Angelo P. & Guedes Soares, C., 2020. "A two-stage Failure Mode and Effect Analysis of offshore wind turbines," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 1438-1461.
    4. Poppe, Joeri & Boute, Robert N. & Lambrecht, Marc R., 2018. "A hybrid condition-based maintenance policy for continuously monitored components with two degradation thresholds," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 268(2), pages 515-532.
    5. Carnero, María Carmen & Gómez, Andrés, 2017. "Maintenance strategy selection in electric power distribution systems," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 255-272.
    6. Ikuobase Emovon & Rosemary A. Norman & Alan J. Murphy, 2018. "Hybrid MCDM based methodology for selecting the optimum maintenance strategy for ship machinery systems," Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Springer, vol. 29(3), pages 519-531, March.
    7. Cipollini, Francesca & Oneto, Luca & Coraddu, Andrea & Murphy, Alan John & Anguita, Davide, 2018. "Condition-based maintenance of naval propulsion systems: Data analysis with minimal feedback," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 12-23.
    8. Kumar, Abhishek & Sah, Bikash & Singh, Arvind R. & Deng, Yan & He, Xiangning & Kumar, Praveen & Bansal, R.C., 2017. "A review of multi criteria decision making (MCDM) towards sustainable renewable energy development," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 596-609.
    9. María Carmen Carnero & Andrés Gómez, 2019. "Optimization of Decision Making in the Supply of Medicinal Gases Used in Health Care," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-31, May.
    10. Mahmood Shafiee & Ashraf Labib & Jhareswar Maiti & Andrew Starr, 2019. "Maintenance strategy selection for multi-component systems using a combined analytic network process and cost-risk criticality model," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 233(2), pages 89-104, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zsuzsanna Katalin Szabo & Zsombor Szádoczki & Sándor Bozóki & Gabriela C. Stănciulescu & Dalma Szabo, 2021. "An Analytic Hierarchy Process Approach for Prioritisation of Strategic Objectives of Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-26, February.
    2. Schneider, Frank, 2008. "Multiple criteria decision making in application layer networks," Bayreuth Reports on Information Systems Management 36, University of Bayreuth, Chair of Information Systems Management.
    3. Bana e Costa, Carlos A. & Vansnick, Jean-Claude, 2008. "A critical analysis of the eigenvalue method used to derive priorities in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 187(3), pages 1422-1428, June.
    4. Ouesleti, Bilel & Costa-Font, Montserrat & Kallas, Zein & Chema Gil, Jose Maria, 2015. "Determinant Factors Affecting The Point of Purchase Selection: valuation and Perceptions," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212603, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    5. Kadziński, MiŁosz & Greco, Salvatore & SŁowiński, Roman, 2012. "Extreme ranking analysis in robust ordinal regression," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 40(4), pages 488-501.
    6. Ayse Sena Eruguz & Tarkan Tan & Geert‐Jan van Houtum, 2017. "Optimizing usage and maintenance decisions for k‐out‐of‐n systems of moving assets," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 64(5), pages 418-434, August.
    7. Roszkowska, Ewa & Wachowicz, Tomasz, 2015. "Application of fuzzy TOPSIS to scoring the negotiation offers in ill-structured negotiation problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 242(3), pages 920-932.
    8. Miller, Michael & Mattes, Katharina, 2014. "Demonstration of a multi-criteria based decision support framework for selecting PSS to increase resource efficiency," Working Papers "Sustainability and Innovation" S11/2014, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).
    9. Roy, Bernard & Slowinski, Roman, 2008. "Handling effects of reinforced preference and counter-veto in credibility of outranking," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 188(1), pages 185-190, July.
    10. Devesh Kumar & Gunjan Soni & Rohit Joshi & Vipul Jain & Amrik Sohal, 2022. "Modelling supply chain viability during COVID-19 disruption: A case of an Indian automobile manufacturing supply chain," Operations Management Research, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 1224-1240, December.
    11. Miguel Á. García-Fuentes & Rubén García-Pajares & Cecilia Sanz & Alberto Meiss, 2018. "Novel Design Support Methodology Based on a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Approach for Energy Efficient District Retrofitting Projects," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-19, September.
    12. Muchiri, Peter & Pintelon, Liliane & Gelders, Ludo & Martin, Harry, 2011. "Development of maintenance function performance measurement framework and indicators," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(1), pages 295-302, May.
    13. Shan Zhao & Hua Liu & Yongfeng Zhu & Shen Wang & Xianzhang Yang, 2022. "Quantitative Evaluation of Gypsum-Salt Caprock Sealing Capacity Based on Analytic Hierarchy Process—A Case Study from the Cambrian in the Tarim Basin, Western China," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-15, September.
    14. Pelenc, Jérôme & Etxano, Iker, 2021. "Capabilities, Ecosystem Services, and Strong Sustainability through SMCE: The Case of Haren (Belgium)," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    15. Calders, Toon & Van Assche, Dimitri, 2018. "PROMETHEE is not quadratic: An O(qnlog(n)) algorithm," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 63-69.
    16. Tim Schröder & Lars-Peter Lauven & Beatriz Beyer & Nils Lerche & Jutta Geldermann, 2019. "Using PROMETHEE to assess bioenergy pathways," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 27(2), pages 287-309, June.
    17. Carlos A. Bana e Costa & João Carlos Lourenço & Mónica Duarte Oliveira & João C. Bana e Costa, 2014. "A Socio-technical Approach for Group Decision Support in Public Strategic Planning: The Pernambuco PPA Case," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 5-29, January.
    18. James G. Dolan & Emily Boohaker & Jeroan Allison & Thomas F. Imperiale, 2013. "Patients’ Preferences and Priorities Regarding Colorectal Cancer Screening," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(1), pages 59-70, January.
    19. P Ji & R Jiang, 2003. "Scale transitivity in the AHP," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 54(8), pages 896-905, August.
    20. Iker Etxano & Itziar Barinaga-Rementeria & Oihana Garcia, 2018. "Conflicting Values in Rural Planning: A Multifunctionality Approach through Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-29, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:reensy:v:142:y:2015:i:c:p:31-41. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/reliability-engineering-and-system-safety .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.