A Voting Approach Applied to Preventive Maintenance Management of a Water Supply System

Abstract

In developing countries, water distribution is a service that has limited resources for its expansion and modernization. Besides this problem, some regions suffer shortages of water. Thus, this resource is under-supplied to many communities. For this kind of situation, the planning of maintenance activities becomes even more important in order to reduce downtime due to system failures. Generally, more than one person may be involved in such kinds of decision-making processes. Thus, methods to aid group decision-making play an important role in finding a solution that captures different points of view. Therefore, this paper puts forward an approach for analyzing the preferences of water supply maintenance managers and includes the customer’s perspective in the decision process. The evaluation criteria are set in terms of seeking to establish the optimal interval for preventive maintenance. The alternative chosen based on the rankings from individual decision-makers (DMs) represents the best compromise from the perceptions of all DMs involved in this problem. The proposed approach to aggregate the DMs’ preferences is well suited to the context of maintenance management for a water supply system.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Arrow K (1950) A difficulty in the concept of social welfare. J Polit Econ 58:328–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Barlow R, Hunter L (1960) Optimum preventive maintenance policies. Oper Res 8(1):90–100. doi:10.1287/opre.8.1.90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Beichelt F (1976) A general preventive maintenance policy. Mathematische Operationsforschung und Statistik 7:927–932

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Brans JP, Mareschal B (1984) PROMETHEE: a new family of outranking methods in multicriteria analysis. Oper Res 84:408–421

    Google Scholar 

  5. Brasil (2016a) Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil de 1988. Palácio do Planalto. http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/Constituicao/Constituicao.htm. Accessed 27 May 2016

  6. Brasil (2016b) Lei N\(^{\circ }\)9,433 de 8 de Janeiro de 1997. Palácio do Planalto. http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/Leis/L9433.htm. Accessed 27 May 2016

  7. Burke R, Heaney JP, Pyatt EE (1973) Water resources and social choices. J Am Water Resour Assoc 9(3):433–447. doi:10.1111/j.1752-1688.1973.tb01758.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Cassady CR, Kutanoglu E (2005) Integrating preventive maintenance planning and production scheduling for a single machine. IEEE Trans Reliab 54(2):304–309. doi:10.1109/TR.2005.845967

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Chareonsuk C, Nagarur N, Tabucanon MT (1997) A multicriteria approach to the selection of preventive maintenance intervals. Int J Prod Econ 49:55–64. doi:10.1016/S0925-5273(96)00113-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Christophe B, Tina R (2015) Integrating water resource management and land-use planning at the rural-urban interface: insights from a political economy approach. Water Resour Econ 9:45–59. doi:10.1016/j.wre.2014.11.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Cullen P (1989) Social choice, risk and determinism in water quality management. Hydrobiologia 176:1–5. doi:10.1007/BF00026538

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Cunha A, Morais DC (2015) Decision support model for participatory management of water resource. In: Delibašić B, Hernández JE, Papathanasiou J, Dargam F, Zaraté P, Ribeiro R, Liu S, Linden I (eds) Lecture notes in business information processing. Springer, Berlin, pp 85–97. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-18533-0_8

    Google Scholar 

  13. Daher SFD, de Almeida AT (2012) The use of ranking Veto concept to mitigate the compensatory effects of additive aggregation in group decisions on a water utility automation investment. Gr Decis Negot 21(2):185–204. doi:10.1007/s10726-011-9266-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. d’Angelo A, Szidarovsky F, Eskandary A (1998) Social choice procedures in water resource management. J Environ Manag 52(3):203. doi:10.1006/jema.1997.0156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. de Almeida AT, Cavalcante CAV, Alencar MH, Ferreira RJP, Almeida-Filho AT, Garcez TV (2015b) Multicriteria and multi-objective models for risk, reliability and maintenance decision analysis. In: International Series in Operations Research & Management Science. Springer, New York

  16. de Almeida AT (2012) Multicriteria model for selection of preventive maintenance intervals. Qual Reliab Eng Int 28:585–593. doi:10.1002/qre.1415

    Google Scholar 

  17. de Almeida AT, Ferreira RJP, Cavalcante CAV (2015a) A review of the use of multicriteria and multi-objective models in maintenance and reliability. IMA J Manag Math 26(3):249–271. doi:10.1093/imaman/dpv010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. de Almeida AT, de Almeida JA, Costa APCS, de Almeida-Filho AT (2016) A new method for elicitation of criteria weights in additive models: flexible and interactive tradeoff. Eur J Oper Res 250:179–191. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2015.08.058

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Draginčič J, Vranešević M (2014) AHP-based group decision making approach to supplier selection of irrigation equipment. Water Resour 41:782–791. doi:10.1134/S0097807814060050

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Glasser GJ (1969) Planned replacement: some theory and its application. J Qual Technol 1(2):110–119

    Google Scholar 

  21. Halabi AX, Montoya-Torres JR, Obregón N (2012) A case study of group decision method for environmental foresight and water resources planning using a fuzzy approach. Gr Decis Negot 21(2):205–232. doi:10.1007/s10726-011-9269-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hämäläinen RP, Kettunen E, Ehtamo H, Marttunen M (2001) Evaluating a framework for multi-stakeholder decision support in water resources management. Gr Decis Negot 10:331–353. doi:10.1023/A:1011207207809

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hersch PL, Pelkowski JE (2014) Voter demand for fluoridated water: a tale of two c(av)ities. Appl Econ Lett 21:51–54. doi:10.1080/13504851.2013.837573

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. IEEE (2012) Std 1366–2012: IEEE guide for electric power distribution reliability indices. IEEE, New York

  25. Jiang R, Ji P (2002) Age replacement policy: a multi-attribute value model. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 76(3):311–318. doi:10.1016/S0951-8320(02)00021-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Keeney RL, Raiffa H (1976) Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  27. Latinopoulos D (2014) Using a choice experiment to estimate the social benefits from improved water supply services. J Integr Environ 11:187–204. doi:10.1080/1943815X.2014.942746

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Li F, Brown RE, Freeman LAA (2003) A Linear Contribution factor model of distribution reliability indices and its applications in Monte Carlo simulation and sensitivity analysis. IEEE Trans Power Syst 18:1213–1215. doi:10.1109/TPWRS.2003.814906

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Lienert J, Scholten L, Egger C, Maurer M (2014) Structured decision-making for sustainable water infrastructure planning and four future scenarios. EURO J Decis Process 3:107–140. doi:10.1007/s40070-014-0030-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Madani K, Read L, Shalikarian L (2014) Voting under uncertainty: a stochastic framework for analyzing group decision making problems. Water Resour Manag 28:1839–1856. doi:10.1007/s11269-014-0556-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Mann KB, Berry KA, Bassett S, Chandra S (2013) Voting on floodplain conservation: the role of public values and interactions along the Carson River, Nevada. Soc Nat Resour 26:568–585. doi:10.1080/08941920.2012.713449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Monte MBS, de Almeida-Filho AT (2016) A multicriteria approach using MAUT to assist the maintenance of a water supply system located in a low-income community. Water Resour Manag. doi:10.1007/s11269-016-1333-7

    Google Scholar 

  33. Morais DC, de Almeida AT, Figueira JR (2014) A sorting model for group decision making: a case study of water losses in Brazil. Gr Decis Negot 23:937–960. doi:10.1007/s10726-012-9321-7

    Google Scholar 

  34. Morais DC, de Almeida AT (2007) Group decision-making for leakage management strategy of water network. Resour Conserv Recycl 52:441–459. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2007.06.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Morais DC, de Almeida AT (2010) Water network rehabilitation: a group decision-making approach. Water SA 36:487–493. doi:10.4314/wsa.v36i4.58425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Morais DC, de Almeida AT (2012) Group decision making on water resources based on analysis of individual rankings. Omega 40:42–52. doi:10.1016/j.omega.2011.03.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Nurmi H (1983) Voting procedures: a summary analysis. Br J Polit Sci 13(2):181–208. doi:10.1017/S0007123400003215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Nurmi H (2014) Some remarks on the concept of proportionality. Ann Oper Res 2015:231–244. doi:10.1007/s10479-012-1252-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Ostrom E (1990) Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  40. Rausand M, Høyland A (2004) System reliability theory: models and statistical methods. Wiley, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  41. Recife (2016) Characterization of neighborhoods of recife. Demographic census of 2010 (in Portuguese). http://www2.recife.pe.gov.br/servico/perfil-dos-bairros. Accessed 27 May 2016

  42. Roozbahani A, Zahraie B, Tabesh M (2012) PROMETHEE with precedence order in the criteria (PPOC) as a new group decision making aid: an application in urban water supply management. Water Resour Manag 26(12):3581–3599. doi:10.1007/s11269-012-0091-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Schoolmaster FA (1984) A geographical analysis of voting patterns for water related constitutional amendments in Texas, 1957–1981. J Am Water Resour Assoc 20:151–162. doi:10.1111/j.1752-1688.1984.tb04665.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Silva VBS, Morais DC, de Almeida AT (2010) A multicriteria group decision model to support watershed committees in Brazil. Water Resour Manag 24:4075–4091. doi:10.1007/s11269-010-9648-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Smith JH (1973) Aggregation of preferences with variable electorate. Econometrica 41:1027–1041. doi:10.2307/1914033

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Srdjevic B et al (2007) Linking analytic hierarchy process and social choice methods to support group decision-making in water management. Decis Support Syst 42:2261–2273. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2006.08.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Srdjevic Z, Srdjevic B (2013) Introducing the social participation concept in water management in Serbia, and related decision-making issues. Water Resour 40:469–475. doi:10.1134/S009780781304012X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Straffin PD (1980) Topics in theory of voting. Birkhäuser, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  49. Sun B, Wei M, Du J, Ji W, Wen M (2015) Multi-attribute group decision making method of ecological water compensation program based on preference of decision makers. J Coast Res 73:606–610. doi:10.2112/SI73-105.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Trojan F, Morais DC (2012) Prioritizing alternatives for maintenance of water distribution networks: a group decision approach. Water SA 38:555–564. doi:10.4314/wsa.v38i4.11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. UN – United Nations (2016) Resolution 64/292: the human right to water and sanitation. http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/64/292. Accessed 27 May 2016

  52. Villaverde AR, Tadeo AJP, Gómez FG (2015) The ’social choice’ of privatising urban water services: a case study of Madrid in Spain. J Policy Model 37:616–629. doi:10.1016/j.jpolmod.2015.04.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Weibull W (1951) A statistical distribution function of wide applicability. ASME J Appl Mech 293–297

  54. Zhao Y, Zhang F, Zhang D (2013) A group decision making model of water resources management based on supporting degrees of experts. Appl Mech Mater 357–360:2362–2365. doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.357-360.2362

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful for the support from CAPES, COMPESA (Sanitation Company of Pernambuco) and for the partial support of CNPq.

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adiel T. de Almeida-Filho.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

de Almeida-Filho, A.T., Monte, M.B.S. & Morais, D.C. A Voting Approach Applied to Preventive Maintenance Management of a Water Supply System. Group Decis Negot 26, 523–546 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-016-9512-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • Water supply
  • Preventive maintenance
  • Group decision-making
  • Quartile based voting