Skip to main content

Strategic maintenance technique selection using combined quality function deployment, the analytic hierarchy process and the benefit of doubt approach

Abstract

The business performance of manufacturing organizations depends on the reliability and productivity of equipment, machineries and entire manufacturing system. Therefore, the main role of maintenance and production managers is to keep manufacturing system always up by adopting most appropriate maintenance methods. There are alternative maintenance techniques for each machine, the selection of which depend on multiple factors. The contemporary approaches to maintenance technique selection emphasize on operational needs and economic factors only. As the reliability of production systems is the strategic intent of manufacturing organizations, maintenance technique selection must consider strategic factors of the concerned organization along with operational and economic criteria. The main aim of this research is to develop a method for selecting the most appropriate maintenance technique for manufacturing industry with the consideration of strategic, planning and operational criteria through involvement of relevant stakeholders. The proposed method combines quality function deployment (QFD), the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and the benefit of doubt (BoD) approach. QFD links strategic intents of the organizations with the planning and operational needs, the AHP helps in prioritizing the criteria for selection and ranking the alternative maintenance techniques, and the BoD approach facilitates analysing robustness of the method through sensitivity analysis through setting the realistic limits for decision making. The proposed method has been applied to maintenance technique selection problems of three productive systems of a gear manufacturing organization in India to demonstrate its effectiveness.

References

  1. de Smidt-Destombes KS, van der Heijden MC, van Harten A (2004) On the availability of a k-out-of-N system given limited spares and repair capacity under a condition based maintenance strategy. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 83:287–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Van Horenbeek A, Pintelon L (2014) Development of a maintenance performance measurement framework—using the analytic network process (ANP) for maintenance performance indicator selection. Omega 42:33–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Crespo Marquez A, Gupta JN (2006) Contemporary maintenance management: process, framework and supporting pillars. Omega 34:313–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Muchiri P, Pintelon L, Gelders L, Martin H (2011) Development of maintenance function performance measurement framework and indicators. Int J Prod Econ 131:295–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kutucuoglu KY, Hamali J, Irani Z, Sharp JM (2001) A framework for managing maintenance using performance measurement systems. Int J Oper Prod Manag 21:173–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Shen Q, Lo K-K, Wang Q (1998) Priority setting in maintenance management: a modified multi-attribute approach using analytic hierarchy process. Constr Manag Econ 16:693–702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Tsang AH (2002) Strategic dimensions of maintenance management. J Qual Maint Eng 8:7–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Murthy DNP, Atrens A, Eccleston JA (2002) Strategic maintenance management. J Qual Maint Eng 8:287–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Luce S (1999) Choice criteria in conditional preventive maintenance. Mech Syst Signal Process 13:163–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Parida A, Chattopadhyay G (2007) Development of a multi-criteria hierarchical framework for maintenance performance measurement (MPM). J Qual Maint Eng 13:241–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Arunraj NS, Maiti J (2010) Risk-based maintenance policy selection using AHP and goal programming. Saf Sci 48:238–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Tan Z, Li J, Wu Z et al (2011) An evaluation of maintenance strategy using risk based inspection. Saf Sci 49:852–860

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bertolini M, Bevilacqua M (2006) A combined goal programming—AHP approach to maintenance selection problem. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 91:839–848

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bashiri M, Badri H, Hejazi TH (2011) Selecting optimum maintenance strategy by fuzzy interactive linear assignment method. Appl Math Model 35:152–164

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Katchasuwanmanee K, Bateman R, Cheng K (2016) Development of the Energy-smart Production Management system (e-ProMan): a big data driven approach, analysis and optimisation. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part B J Eng Manuf 230:972–978

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Dey PK (2004) Decision support system for inspection and maintenance: a case study of oil pipelines. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 51:47–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Carnero MC (2005) Selection of diagnostic techniques and instrumentation in a predictive maintenance program. A case study. Decis Support Syst 38:539–555

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Baidya R, Ghosh SK (2015) Model for a predictive maintenance system effectiveness using the analytical hierarchy process as analytical tool. IFAC-Pap 48:1463–1468

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Chemweno P, Pintelon L, Van Horenbeek A, Muchiri P (2015) Development of a risk assessment selection methodology for asset maintenance decision making: An analytic network process (ANP) approach. Int J Prod Econ 170:663–676

  20. Wang L, Chu J, Wu J (2007) Selection of optimum maintenance strategies based on a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. Int J Prod Econ 107:151–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Chan L-K, M-L W (2002) Quality function deployment: a literature review. Eur J Oper Res 143:463–497

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Bhattacharya A, Sarkar B, Mukherjee SK (2005) Integrating AHP with QFD for robot selection under requirement perspective. Int J Prod Res 43:3671–3685

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Chuang P-T (2001) Combining the analytic hierarchy process and quality function deployment for a location decision from a requirement perspective. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 18:842–849

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hanumaiah N, Ravi B, Mukherjee NP (2006) Rapid hard tooling process selection using QFD-AHP methodology. J Manuf Technol Manag 17:332–350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Ho W, He T, Lee CKM, Emrouznejad A (2012) Strategic logistics outsourcing: an integrated QFD and fuzzy AHP approach. Expert Syst Appl 39:10841–10850

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Dey PK, Bhattacharya A, Ho W (2015) Strategic supplier performance evaluation: A case-based action research of a UK manufacturing organisation. Int J Prod Econ 166:192–214

  27. Houser JR, Clausing D (1988) The house of quality. Harv Bus Rev 66:63–73

    Google Scholar 

  28. Bicheno J (1994) The quality 50: a guide to gurus, tools, wastes, techniques and systems, PICSIE Books, Buckingham

  29. Saaty TL (2008) Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int J Serv Sci 1:83–98

    Google Scholar 

  30. Thanassoulis E (2000) The use of data envelopment analysis in the regulation of UK water utilities: water distribution. Eur J Oper Res 126:436–453

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  31. Evans JR, Lindsay WM (2002) The management and control of quality. Cincinnati, OH, South-Western, Vol. 5, pp. 115–128

  32. Sullivan LP (1986) Quality progress. June, 12–15

  33. Zaim S, Turkyilmaz A, Acar MF et al (2012) Maintenance strategy selection using AHP and ANP algorithms: a case study. J Qual Maint Eng 18:16–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Tsang AH (1998) A strategic approach to managing maintenance performance. J Qual Maint Eng 4:87–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Hameed Z, Hong YS, Cho YM et al (2009) Condition monitoring and fault detection of wind turbines and related algorithms: a review. Renew Sust Energ Rev 13:1–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Caselitz P, Giebhardt J (June 2003) Fault prediction techniques for offshore wind farm maintenance and repair strategies. In: Proceedings of the EWEC2003; Madrid (Spain)

  37. Sun Q, Tang Y (2002) Singularity analysis using continuous wavelet transform for bearing fault diagnosis. Mech Syst Signal Process 16:1025–1041

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Peter WT, Peng YH, Yam R (2001) Wavelet analysis and envelope detection for rolling element bearing fault diagnosis—their effectiveness and flexibilities. J Vib Acoust 123:303–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Tandon N, Nakra BC (1990) Defect detection in rolling element bearings by acoustic emission method. J Acoust Emiss 9:25–28

    Google Scholar 

  40. Tan CC (1990) Application of acoustic emission to the detection of bearing failures. In: Int. Tribol. Conf. 1990 Brisb. 2–5 Dec. 1990 Putt. Tribol. Work Reliab. Maintainab. Lubr. Wear Technol. Prepr. Pap. Institution of Engineers, Australia, p 110

  41. Leske S, Kitaljevich D (2006) Managing gearbox failure, Dewek. Dewi Magazine; N, 29

  42. Butler DE (1973) The shock-pulse method for the detection of damaged rolling bearings. Non-Destr Test 6:92–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Tandon N, Nakra BC (1992) Comparison of vibration and acoustic measurement techniques for the condition monitoring of rolling element bearings. Tribol Int 25:205–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Muller H, Poller M, Basteck A, et al (2006) Grid compatibility of variable speed wind turbines with directly coupled synchronous generator and hydro-dynamically controlled gearbox. In: Sixth Int. Workshop Large-Scale Integr. Wind Power Transm. Netw. Offshore Wind Farms. pp 307–315

  45. Zaher AS, McArthur SDJ (2007) A multi-agent fault detection system for wind turbine defect recognition and diagnosis. In: Power Tech 2007 I.E. Lausanne. IEEE, pp 22–27

  46. Sorensen BF, Lading L, Sendrup P, McGugan M, Debel CP, Kristensen OJD, et al (2002) Fundamentals for remote structural health monitoring of wind turbines blades - A Preproject. Riso-R-1336(EN)

  47. Vidoli F, Mazziotta C (2013) Robust weighted composite indicators by means of frontier methods with an application to European infrastructure endowment. Italian journal of applied statistics 23(2):259–282

  48. Garcia MC, Sanz-Bobi MA, del Pico J (2006) SIMAP: intelligent system for predictive maintenance: application to the health condition monitoring of a windturbine gearbox. Comput Ind 57:552–568

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Prasanta Kumar Dey.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Baidya, R., Dey, P.K., Ghosh, S. . et al. Strategic maintenance technique selection using combined quality function deployment, the analytic hierarchy process and the benefit of doubt approach. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 94, 31–44 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-016-9540-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-016-9540-1

Keywords

  • Maintenance techniques
  • Analytic hierarchy process
  • Quality function deployment
  • Benefit of doubt
  • Stakeholder’s needs
  • Sustainability