Optimal sequencing of heterogeneous, non-instantaneous interventions

S.I.: Computational Biomedicine
  • 24 Downloads

Abstract

We consider a stochastically deteriorating system that generates reward at a rate that depends on its condition. There are three heterogeneous interventions/actions that can be performed. Two of these are one-time interventions, each of which is either ineffective or effective with some known probability after a specific delay period. The third intervention is palliative in nature (i.e., does not affect the deterioration process), and has no effectiveness delay. To maximize the total expected reward generated by the system, we examine the problem of optimally sequencing these interventions to simultaneously balance three inherent trade-offs: the time until (potential) effectiveness is revealed, probability of effectiveness, and cost. This problem is motivated by decision-making in the treatment of chronic diseases where providers must determine the order in which to prescribe treatment options (e.g., medications) with uncertain outcomes. We provide both theoretical conditions and numerical examples that indicate when it is optimal to reserve the palliative intervention as a last resort and in what order to implement the other two interventions.

Keywords

Maintenance planning Heterogeneous non-instantaneous interventions Sequencing Optimization 

References

  1. Alagoz, O., Maillart, L. M., Schaefer, A. J., & Roberts, M. S. (2004). The optimal timing of living-donor liver transplantation. Management Science, 50(10), 1420–1430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cho, D. I., & Parlar, M. (1991). A survey of maintenance models for multi-unit systems. European Journal of Operational Research, 51(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Derman, C., Lieberman, G. J., & Ross, S. M. (1984). On the use of replacements to extend system life. Operations Research, 32(3), 616–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dohi, T., & Nakagawa, T. (2013). Stochastic reliability and maintenance modelling. London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Frosch, D. L., & Kaplan, R. M. (1999). Shared decision making in clinical medicine: Past research and future directions. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 17(4), 285–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Garg, A., & Deshmukh, S. G. (2006). Maintenance management: Literature review and directions. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, 12(3), 205–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hunink, M. G. M., Weinstein, M. C., et al. (2014). Decision making in health and medicine: Integrating evidence and values. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Icten, Z. G., Shechter, S. M., Maillart, L. M., & Nagarajan, M. (2013). Optimal management of a limited number of replacements under Markovian deterioration. IIE Transactions, 45(2), 206–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jardine, A. K. S., Lin, D., & Banjevic, D. (2006). A review on machinery diagnostics and prognostics implementing condition-based maintenance. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 20(7), 1483–1510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kurt, M., & Kharoufeh, J. P. (2010). Optimally maintaining a Markovian deteriorating system with limited imperfect repairs. European Journal of Operational Research, 205(2), 368–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. McCall, J. J. (1965). Maintenance policies for stochastically failing equipment: A survey. Management Science, 11(5), 493–524.  https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.11.5.493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ohnishi, M., Morioka, T., & Ibaraki, T. (1994). Optimal minimal-repair and replacement problem of discrete-time Markovian deterioration system under incomplete state information. Computers & industrial engineering, 27(1–4), 409–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Serfozo, R. (2009). Basics of Applied Stochastic Processes. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Sharma, A., Yadava, G. S., & Deshmukh, S. G. (2011). A literature review and future perspectives on maintenance optimization. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, 17(1), 5–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Shechter, S. M., Bailey, M. D., & Schaefer, A. J. (2008). Replacing nonidentical vital components to extend system life. Naval Research Logistics (NRL), 55(7), 700–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Shi, J., Alagoz, O., Erenay, F. S., & Su, Q. (2014). A survey of optimization models on cancer chemotherapy treatment planning. Annals of Operations Research, 221(1), 331–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Singh, J. A., Saag, K. G., Bridges, S. L., et al. (2016). 2015 American College of Rheumatology guideline for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis & Rheumatology, 68(1), 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Valdez-Flores, C., & Feldman, R. M. (1989). A survey of preventive maintenance models for stochastically deteriorating single-unit systems. Naval Research Logistics, 36(4), 419–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Wang, H. (2002). A survey of maintenance policies of deteriorating systems. European Journal of Operational Research, 139(3), 469–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Industrial EngineeringUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations