Author
Listed:
- Malek Tajadod
(Department of Industrial Engineering, Shahid Bahonar University, Kerman, Iran)
- Mohammadali Abedini
(Department of Industrial Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology (IUST), Tehran, Iran)
- Ali Rategari
(School of Innovation, Design and Engineering, Mälardalen University, Eskilstuna, Sweden & Volvo GTO, Köping, Sweden)
- Mohammadsadegh Mobin
(Department of Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, Western New England University, Springfield, MA, USA)
Abstract
The growth of world-class manufacturing companies and global competition caused significant changes in the manufacturing companies operations. These changes have affected maintenance and made its role even more crucial to stay ahead of the competition. Maintenance strategy selection is one of the strategic decision-making issues that manufacturing companies in the current competitive world are facing. In this paper, a comparison between different Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) approaches is conducted in a dairy manufacturing factory to rank the maintenance strategies. The aim is to suggest an appropriate approach for the best selection of the maintenance strategy. The decision-making elements including evaluation criteria/sub-criteria and problem alternatives, i.e., maintenance strategies are determined and a group of experts from the case-study factory are asked to make their pair-wise comparisons. The pair-wise comparison matrix is constructed by using the crisp and triangular fuzzy numbers, while the aggregation of individual priorities (AIP) approach is utilized to aggregate the decision-makers' judgments. The priority vectors of decision elements are calculated by Mikhailov's fuzzy preference programming (FPP) methods and the final weights of the decision elements are found. Results show that when the effectiveness of one element on the other elements is higher, it will have greater weights; and therefore, the results from the analytic network process (ANP) method is completely different from those of the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). The reason for the differences between the AHP and Fuzzy AHP (FAHP) with the ANP and Fuzzy ANP (FANP) is that both AHP and FAHP evaluate the criteria only based on the level of importance and do not consider the interdependencies and interactions among the evaluation elements. In this research, a predictive maintenance is selected as the most appropriate strategy in the case company and the preventive strategies outperformed the corrective strategies. The results of this research are consistent with the results of previous studies found in the literature.
Suggested Citation
Malek Tajadod & Mohammadali Abedini & Ali Rategari & Mohammadsadegh Mobin, 2016.
"A Comparison of Multi-Criteria Decision Making Approaches for Maintenance Strategy Selection (A Case Study),"
International Journal of Strategic Decision Sciences (IJSDS), IGI Global, vol. 7(3), pages 51-69, July.
Handle:
RePEc:igg:jsds00:v:7:y:2016:i:3:p:51-69
Download full text from publisher
Citations
Citations are extracted by the
CitEc Project, subscribe to its
RSS feed for this item.
Cited by:
- Kumar, Anil & Luthra, Sunil & Khandelwal, Dinesh Kumar & Mehta, Rajneesh & Chaudhary, Nityanand & Bhatia, Sukhdev, 2017.
"Measuring and improving customer retention at authorised automobile workshops after free services,"
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 93-102.
- Carnero, María Carmen & Gómez, Andrés, 2017.
"Maintenance strategy selection in electric power distribution systems,"
Energy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 255-272.
- 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.
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:igg:jsds00:v:7:y:2016:i:3:p:51-69. 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.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Journal Editor (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.igi-global.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.