Advertisement

Selection of Optimum Maintenance Strategy Using Multi-criteria Decision Making Approaches

  • Tolga GedikliEmail author
  • Beyzanur Cayir Ervural
Conference paper
  • 21 Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Management and Industrial Engineering book series (LNMIE)

Abstract

An appropriate maintenance strategy can improve the availability and reliability levels of industries, while improper maintenance strategy can significantly reduce the effectiveness of companies. This paper aims to select the optimal maintenance strategy utilizing four decision-making techniques in a food company in Turkey. In this study, four multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods (Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), Simple Additive Weighting (SAW) and Weighted Product (WP)) are used to determine the optimal maintenance strategy. In this context, four main criteria (safety, cost, reliability, and added-value), twelve criteria and five alternatives (corrective maintenance, time-based preventive maintenance, opportunistic maintenance, condition-based maintenance, and predictive maintenance) are defined according to focus group meetings in the company and the literature review. The obtained results are compared with each other, and then the appropriate maintenance strategies are identified.

Keywords

Maintenance strategy selection Multi-criteria decision making Analytic hierarchy process TOPSIS SAW WP 

References

  1. Abdulgader FS, Eid R, Daneshvar Rouyendegh B (2018) Development of decision support model for selecting a maintenance plan using a fuzzy MCDM approach: a theoretical framework. Appl Comput Intell Soft Comput 14:1–14.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/9346945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aghaee M, Fazli S (2012) An improved MCDM method for maintenance approach selection: a case study of auto industry. Manag Sci Lett 2:137–146.  https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2011.09.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ahmadi A, Gupta S, Karim R, Kumar U (2010) Selection of maintenance strategy for aircraft systems using multi-criteria decision making methodologies. Int J Reliab Qual Saf Eng 17:223–243.  https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218539310003779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Al-Najjar B, Alsyouf I (2003) Selecting the most efficient maintenance approach using fuzzy multiple criteria decision making. Int J Prod Econ 84:85–100.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-5273(02)00380-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bertolini M, Bevilacqua M (2006) A combined goal programming - AHP approach to maintenance selection problem. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 91:839–848.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2005.08.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bevilacqua M, Braglia M (2000) The analytic hierarchy process applied to maintenance strategy selection. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 70:71–83.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0951-8320(00)00047-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cayir Ervural B, Evren R, Delen D (2018a) A multi-objective decision-making approach for sustainable energy investment planning. Renew Energy 126:387–402.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RENENE.2018.03.051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cayir Ervural B, Zaim S, Demirel OF et al (2018b) An ANP and fuzzy TOPSIS-based SWOT analysis for Turkey’s energy planning. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 82:1538–1550.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2017.06.095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chandima Ratnayake RM, Markeset T (2010) Technical integrity management: measuring HSE awareness using AHP in selecting a maintenance strategy. J Qual Maint Eng 16:44–63.  https://doi.org/10.1108/13552511011030327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chen C-T (2000) Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets Syst 114:1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0114(97)00377-1CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Elseddawy AZ, Kandil AH (2018) Selection of appropriate maintenance strategy for medical equipment. In: 2018 9th Cairo international biomedical engineering conference (CIBEC). IEEE, pp 73–77Google Scholar
  12. Emovon I, Norman RA, Murphy AJ (2018) Hybrid MCDM based methodology for selecting the optimum maintenance strategy for ship machinery systems. J Intell Manuf 29:519–531.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-015-1133-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cayir Ervural B, Ervural B, Kabak Ö (2019) Evaluation of flexible manufacturing systems using a hesitant group decision making approach. J Intell Syst 28:245–258.  https://doi.org/10.1515/jisys-2017-0065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ge Y, Xiao M, Yang Z et al (2017) An integrated logarithmic fuzzy preference programming based methodology for optimum maintenance strategies selection. Appl Soft Comput 60:591–601.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ASOC.2017.07.021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hwang C-L, Yoon K (1981) Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications a state-of-the-art survey. Springer, HeidelbergCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ilangkumaran M, Kumanan S (2009) Selection of maintenance policy for textile industry using hybrid multi-criteria decision making approach. J Manuf Technol Manag 20:1009–1022.  https://doi.org/10.1108/17410380910984258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jayaswal P, Sagar MK, Kushwah K (2013) Maintenance strategy selection by fuzzy TOPSIS method of material handling equipment. Int J Emerg Trends Eng Dev 2:126–135Google Scholar
  18. Kirubakaran B, Ilangkumaran M (2016) Selection of optimum maintenance strategy based on FAHP integrated with GRA–TOPSIS. Ann Oper Res 245:285–313.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-014-1775-3MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. Mey Y (2016) Fuzzy analytical hierarchy process for the selection of maintenance policies within petroleum industry, pp 529–534 Google Scholar
  20. Mishra SK, Mahapatra D (2015) Maintenance strategy and decision making–AHP method. Int J Adv Eng Res Stud IV:256–258Google Scholar
  21. Mohamed A, Saad S (2016) Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process for the selection of maintenance policies within petroleum industry. In: Advances in transdisciplinary engineering. IOS Press BV, pp 529–534Google Scholar
  22. Odeyale SO, Alamu OJ, Odeyale EO (2013) The analytical hierarchy process concept for maintenance strategy selection in manufacturing industries. Pacific J Sci Technol 14:223–233Google Scholar
  23. Opricovic S, Tzeng G-H (2004) Compromise solution by MCDM methods: a comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. Eur J Oper Res 156:445–455.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00020-1CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. Pariazar M, Shahrabi J, Zaeri MS, Parhizi S (2008) A combined approach for maintenance strategy selection. J Appl Sci 8:4321–4329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pourjavad E, Shirouyehzad H, Shahin A (2013) Selecting maintenance strategy in mining industry by analytic network process and TOPSIS. Int J Ind Syst Eng 15:171.  https://doi.org/10.1504/ijise.2013.056095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Savitha K, Chandrasekar C (2011) Vertical Handover decision schemes using SAW and WPM for Network selection in Heterogeneous Wireless Networks. Type Double Blind Peer Rev Int Res J Publ Glob Journals Inc 11:18–24Google Scholar
  27. Saaty TL (1980) What is the analytic hierarchy process? In: Mathematical models for decision support. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 109–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Shafiee M (2015) Maintenance strategy selection problem: an MCDM overview. J Qual Maint Eng 21:378–402.  https://doi.org/10.1108/JQME-09-2013-0063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Shahin A, Pourjavad E, Shirouyehzad H (2012) Optimum maintenance strategy: A case study in the mining industry. Artic Int J Serv Oper Manag 12:368–386.  https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSOM.2012.047626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Shyjith K, Ilangkumaran M, Kumanan S (2008) Multi-criteria decision-making approach to evaluate optimum maintenance strategy in textile industry. J Qual Maint Eng 14:375–386.  https://doi.org/10.1108/13552510810909975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Thor J, Ding S-H, Kamaruddin S (2013) Comparison of multi criteria decision making methods from the maintenance alternative selection perspective. Int J Eng Sci (IJES) 2:27–34Google Scholar
  32. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2006.08.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Xie H, Shi L, Xu H (2013) Transformer maintenance policies selection based on an improved fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. J Comput 8:1343–1350.  https://doi.org/10.4304/jcp.8.5.1343-1350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Yeh C-H (2003) The selection of multiattribute decision making methods for scholarship student selection. Int J Sel Assess 11:289–296.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0965-075X.2003.00252.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Zaeri MS, Shahrabi J, Pariazar M, Morabbi A (2007) A combined multivariate technique and multi criteria decision making to maintenance strategy selection. In: 2007 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management. IEEE, pp 621–625Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and ArchitectureKonya Food and Agriculture UniversityKonyaTurkey

Personalised recommendations