Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Examination of the Mediating Effects of Physical Asset Management on the Relationship Between Sustainability and Operational Performance

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Advances in Manufacturing II (MANUFACTURING 2019)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering ((LNME))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

This study examines the mediating effects of physical asset management on the relationship between sustainability and operational performance. Using empirical data based on survey data from six European countries (i.e. Greece, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden and Turkey), this study utilized mediation analysis in order to address the research problem. A macro for SPSS was used to estimate the size of an indirect effect of sustainability on operational performance through a mediator (physical asset management). Results of this study show mediator effect of physical asset management on the relationship between sustainability and operational performance. The paper provides valuable insights into mechanism that have a potential to enhance operational performance. The results contribute to a better understanding on how organizations could achieve higher operational performance outcomes by implementing sustainability and physical asset management practices.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Pačaiová, H., Sinay, J., Nagyová, A.: Development of GRAM–a risk measurement tool using risk based thinking principles. Measurement 100, 288–296 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Hamrol, A.: A new look at some aspects of maintenance and improvement of production processes. Manag. Prod. Eng. Rev. 9(1), 34–43 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Algabroun, H., Iftikhar, M.U., Al-Najjar, B., Weyns, D.: Maintenance 4.0 Framework using self-adaptive software architecture. In: Proceedings of 2nd International Conference on Maintenance Engineering, IncoME-II 2017, The University of Manchester, UK (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Rodič, B.: Industry 4.0 and the new simulation modelling paradigm. Organization 50(3), 193–207 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Wijnia, Y., de Croon, J.: The asset management process reference model for infrastructures. In: 9th WCEAM Research Papers, pp. 447–457. Springer International Publishing (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Komonen, K., Kortelainen, H., Räikkönen, M.: Corporate asset management for industrial companies: an integrated business-driven approach. In: Asset Management, pp. 47–63. Springer, Dordrecht (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Haider, A., Koronios, A., Quirchmayr, G.: You cannot manage what you cannot measure: an information systems based asset management perspective. In: Mathew, J., Ma, L., Tan, A., Anderson, D. (eds.) Proceedings of Inaugural World Congress on Engineering Asset Management, Gold Coast, Australia, 11–14 July 2006

    Google Scholar 

  8. Amadi-Echendu, J.E.: Managing physical assets is a paradigm shift from maintenance. Paper presented at the IEEE International Engineering Management Conference (2004). https://doi.org/10.1109/iemc

  9. Bond, T.C.: The role of performance measurement in continuous improvement. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 19(12), 1318–1334 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Maletič, D.: Interaction between quality management, production and maintenance performance. Doctoral dissertation, Faculty of Organizational Sciences, University of Maribor, Kranj (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Maletič, D., Maletič, M., Al-Najjar, B., Gomišček, B.: Development of a model linking physical asset management to sustainability performance: an empirical research. Sustainability 10(12), 4759 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Alsyouf, I., Alsuwaidi, M., Hamdan, S., Shamsuzzaman, M.: Impact of ISO 55000 on organisational performance: evidence from certified UAE firms. Total Qual. Manag. Bus., 1–9 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Amadi-Echendu, J.E., Willett, R., Brown, K., Hope, T., Lee, J., Mathew, J., Vyas, N., Yang, B.S.: What is engineering asset management? In: Proceedings of 2nd World Congress on Engineering Asset Management and the 4th International Conference on Condition Monitoring, pp. 116–129 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Emmanouilidis, C., Komonen, K.: Physical asset management practices in industry: comparisons between Greece and other EU countries. In: Prabhu, V., Taisch, M., Kiritsis, D. (eds.) Advances in Production Management Systems. Sustainable Production and Service Supply Chains. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, pp. 509–516. Springer, New York (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Schuman, C.A., Brent, A.C.: Asset life cycle management: towards improving physical asset performance in the process industry. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 25(6), 566–579 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Komljenovic, D., Gaha, M., Abdul-Nour, G., Langheit, C., Bourgeois, M.: Risks of extreme and rare events in Asset Management. Saf. Sci. 88, 129–145 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Roda, I., Macchi, M.: Studying the funding principles for integrating Asset Management in Operations: an empirical research in production companies. In: 3rd IFAC Workshop on Advanced Maintenance Engineering, Services and Technology, AMEST 2016, Biarritz, France, 19–21 October 2016. IFAC-PapersOnLine 49(28), 1–6

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  18. Maletič, D., Maletič, M., Al-Najjar, B., Gotzamani, K., Gianni, M., Kalinowski, T.B., Gomišček, B.: Contingency factors influencing implementation of physical asset management practices. Organizacija 50(1), 3–16 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Liyanage, J.P., Badurdeen, F., Chandima Ratnayake, R.M.: Industrial asset maintenance and sustainability performance: economical, environmental, and societal implications. In: Ben-Daya, M., Duffuaa, S.O., Raouf, A., Knezevic, J., Ait-Kadi, D. (eds.) Handbook of Maintenance Management and Engineering, pp. 665–693. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Garetti, M., Taisch, M.: Sustainable manufacturing: trends and research challenges. Prod. Plan. Control 23(2–3) (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. ISO 55001:2014, Asset Management—Management Systems—Requirements. ISO, Geneva (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Baglee, D., Knowles, M., Yau, C.Y.: Development of techniques to manage asset condition using new tools. In: Asset Management, pp. 143–154. Springer, Dordrecht (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Yan, J., Hua, D.: Energy consumption modeling for machine tools after preventive maintenance. In: 2010 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM), 7 December 2010, pp. 2201–2205. IEEE (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Fairfield, K.D., Harmon, J., Behson, S.J.: Influences on the organizational implementation of sustainability: an integrative model. J. Organ. Manag. 8(1), 4–20 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Maletič, M., Maletič, D., Dahlgaard, J.J., Dahlgaard-Park, S.-M., Gomišček, B.: The relationship between sustainability–oriented innovation practices and organizational performance: empirical evidence from Slovenian Organization. Organizacija 47(1), 3–13 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. EFNMS-EAMC: How organizations manage their physical assets in practice, EFNMS Asset Management Survey (EFNMS) (2012). http://www.hms-gr.eu/t/files/EAMCSurvey2011ReportFinal02122012.pdf

  27. McKone, K.E., Schroeder, R.G., Cua, K.O.: The impact of total productive maintenance practices on manufacturing performance. J. Oper. Manag. 19(1), 39–58 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kaynak, H.: The relationship between total quality management practices and their effects on firm performance. J. Oper. Manag. 21(4), 405–435 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Preacher, K.J., Hayes, A.F.: SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behav. Res. Methods Instrum. Comput. 36(4), 717–731 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Preacher, K.J., Hayes, A.F.: Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behav. Res. Methods 40(3), 879–891 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Baron, R.M., Kenny, D.A.: The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psycho-logical research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 51(6), 1173–1182 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Green Jr., K.W., Zelbst, P.J., Meacham, J., Bhadauria, V.S.: Green supply chain management practices: impact on performance. Supply Chain. Manag. 17(3), 290–305 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

We would like to express our deepest gratitude to many people, without whom we could not have realized the international survey, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Katerina Gotzamani (University of Macedonia, Greece), Maria Gianni (University of Macedonia, Greece), Assist. Prof. Dr. T. Bartosz Kalinowski (University of Lodz, Poland), Prof. Dr. Hana Pačaiová (Technical University of Kosice, Slovakia), Dr. Anna Nagyová (Technical University of Kosice, Slovakia) and Onur Altekin (Turkey).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Organizational Sciences, Enterprise Engineering Laboratory, University of Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia

    Damjan Maletič & Matjaž Maletič

  2. School of Engineering, Linnaeus University, Växjö, Sweden

    Basim Al-Najjar

  3. Faculty of Business, University of Wollongong in Dubai, Dubai, United Arab Emirates

    Boštjan Gomišček

Authors
  1. Damjan Maletič
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Matjaž Maletič
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Basim Al-Najjar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Boštjan Gomišček
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Boštjan Gomišček .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Poznan University of Technology, Poznan, Poland

    Adam Hamrol

  2. Poznan University of Technology, Poznan, Poland

    Marta Grabowska

  3. University of Maribor, Kranj, Slovenia

    Damjan Maletic

  4. Brandenburg University of Technology, Cottbus, Brandenburg, Germany

    Ralf Woll

Appendix A: Measurement Scales

Appendix A: Measurement Scales

The items marked with the symbol (*) were excluded from further analysis. The value in parenthesis for each retained item indicates the standardized factor loadings.

Sustainability Practices

Respondents were asked to indicate how much emphasis is placed on each of the following activities where 1 means totally disagree and 5 means totally agree.

  • SU1: We incorporate the interests of key stakeholders (customers and suppliers) in our business decisions (0. 581)

  • SU2: We incorporate the interests of employees in our business decisions (0. 641)

  • SU3: We incorporate environmental concerns in our business decisions (0. 801)

  • SU4: We minimize the environmental impact of all our organization’s activities (0. 785)

  • SU5: We provide a safe and healthy working environment to all employees (0. 822)

  • SU6: We emphasise the importance of our social responsibilities to the society (0. 797)

Physical asset management (consisted of 4 constructs, namely Risk Management, Performance Assessment, Life Cycle Management, Policy & Strategy).

Risk Management

Respondents were asked to indicate how much emphasis is placed on each of the following activities where 1 means totally disagree and 5 means totally agree.

  • RM1: We embed risk into all activities which could affect assets performance (0.947)

  • RM2: We analyse IT-system, business system, human resources, competence, etc. and address risk (0.799)

  • RM3: We analyse operation, production, quality and logistic process and address risk (0.792)

  • RM4: We perform risk assessment in order to minimize business losses (0.767)

  • RM5: Risk management is an integrated part of asset management strategy (0.756)

  • RM6: We analyse equipment failure causes and effects to address risk (0.657)

Performance Assessment

Respondents were asked to indicate how much emphasis is placed on each of the following activities where 1 means totally disagree and 5 means totally agree.

  • PA1: We exploit asset history to enhance asset knowledge (0.848)

  • PA2: We regularly review overall effectiveness of asset management activities (0.830)

  • PA3: We undertake benchmarking to support asset management activities (0.813)

  • PA4: We monitor key performance indicators (KPIs) to verify the achievement of organization’s asset management goals (0.812)

  • PA5: We proactively pursue continuous improvement of asset management activities (0.721)

  • PA6: Company collects and analyses data related to asset management activities (0.681)

  • PA7: We regularly review overall efficiency of asset management activities (0.673)

  • PA8: We exploit information systems to support asset management activities (ERP, CMMS, AMS, or similar ones) (0.584)

  • PA9: We monitor condition of critical assets (0.567)

Life cycle Management

Respondents were asked to indicate how much emphasis is placed on each of the following activities where 1 means totally disagree and 5 means totally agree.

  • LM1: We continuously modernise our assets in accordance with our renewing/revision plans (0.874)

  • LM2: We continuously rationalise our assets to reduce production cost (0.866)

  • LM3: We assure quality of our assets during the whole life cycle phases (0.582)

  • LM4: We assure execution of maintenance processes within all assets’ life cycle phases (0.581)

  • LM5: We execute disposal of assets in accordance with the asset management plan (0.573)

Policy & Strategy

Respondents were asked to indicate how much emphasis is placed on each of the following activities where 1 means totally disagree and 5 means totally agree.

  • PS1: We execute asset management strategy (0.624)

  • PS2: We undertake analyses of asset management policy to determine future production capacity (0.468)

  • PS3: We apply asset management policy (0.822)

  • PS4: We develop asset management objectives (0.463)

Operational Performance

Respondents were asked to select the number (on a 5 point Likert scale) that accurately reflects the extent of their organization’s overall performance over the last three years on each of the following.

  • OP1: Flexibility to change product mix has improved during the last 3 years (0.826)

  • OP2: Percentage of internal scrap and rework has decreased during the last 3 years (0.813)

  • OP3: On-time delivery performance has improved during the last 3 years (0.806)

  • OP4: Cost of poor quality has decreased during the last 3 years (0.780)

  • OP5: Average lead time (from order to delivery) has improved during the last 3 years (0.765)

  • OP6: The production volume has increased during the last 3 years (0.550)

  • OP7: Unit cost of manufacturing has decreased during the last 3 years (0.541)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Maletič, D., Maletič, M., Al-Najjar, B., Gomišček, B. (2019). Examination of the Mediating Effects of Physical Asset Management on the Relationship Between Sustainability and Operational Performance. In: Hamrol, A., Grabowska, M., Maletic, D., Woll, R. (eds) Advances in Manufacturing II. MANUFACTURING 2019. Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17269-5_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17269-5_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-17268-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-17269-5

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation