Advertisement

A TD-ABC Model for the Computation of the Total Cost of Ownership of Spare Parts

  • Paulo AfonsoEmail author
  • Orlando Durán
Conference paper
  • 22 Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes on Multidisciplinary Industrial Engineering book series (LNMUINEN)

Abstract

The costs of spare parts represent an important share of the operation and maintenance costs of capital goods. Spare parts may remain in depots and warehouses for long periods of time, and, many of them require logistics activities. There are several life-cycle cost estimation models for capital-intensive production systems however, commonly, they do not consider logistics costs adequately. Thus, to incorporate all these aspects into the computation of the cost of ownership of spare parts, a time-driven activity-based costing model is proposed in this paper. Furthermore, since the dynamics of spare parts management are based on the reliability of the components, the Weibull’s function is integrated into the model. An application is presented considering a logistics distribution center. The presented approach allowed the costs estimation besides the idle capacity estimation, two important information inputs in logistics management. The results show the usefulness of the proposed model. The opportunities for further research and applications are also discussed.

Keywords

Total cost of ownership Time-driven activity based costing Spare parts 

References

  1. 1.
    Maisenbacher, S., Klöppel, M., Laubmann, J., Behncke, F., Mörtl, M.: Integrated value engineering: consideration of total cost of ownership for better concept decision. In: Proceedings of the Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology, PICMET 2016, pp. 623–632. IEEE Press (2017)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Woodhouse, J.: Managing Industrial Risk: Getting Value for Money in Your Business. Chapman & Hall, London (1993)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Woodward, D.G.: Life cycle costing – theory, information acquisition and application. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 15(6), 335–344 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    International Electrotechnical Commission: Dependability Management. Part 3-3: Application Guide-Life Cycle Costing. IEC 60300-3-3 (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    International Organization for Standardization, Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries – Life Cycle Costing – Part 2: Guidance on Application of Methodology and Calculation Methods. ISO Standard 15663-2 (2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    SEMI International Standards. SEMI E35-0618: Guide to Calculate Cost of Ownership (COO) Metrics for Semiconductor Manufacturing Equipment. SEMI International Standard, Brussels (2018)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    American Society for Testing and Materials International, Standard Practice for Measuring Life-Cycle Costs of Buildings and Building Systems. ASTM E917-2017 (2017)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    International Organization for Standardization, Buildings and Constructed Assets - Service Life Planning - Part 5: Life Cycle Costing. ISO Standard 15686-5 (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    APPA Leadership in Educational Facilities, Total Cost of Ownership for Facilities Asset Management (TCO) – Part 1: Key Principles. APPA Standard 1000-1 (2017)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    NATO ALCCP-1: NATO Guidance on Life Cycle Costs. NATO: Standardization AgreementsGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Roda, I., Garetti, M.: Application of a performance-driven Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) evaluation model for physical asset management. In: Amadi-Echendu, J., Hoohlo, C., Mathew, J. (eds.) 9th WCEAM Research Papers. LNME, pp. 11–23. Springer, Cham (2016)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Blanchard, B.S., Verma, D.C., Verma, D., Peterson, E.L.: Maintainability: A Key to Effective Serviceability and Maintenance Management. Wiley, New York (1995)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Safie, F., Strutts, R., Broussard, S.: Reliability and maintainability – key to launch vehicle affordability. In: Proceedings of the Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium, RAMS 2014, pp. 1–6. IEEE Press (2014)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Duran, O., Roda, I., Macchi, M.: Linking the spare parts management with the total costs of ownership: an agenda for future research. J. Ind. Eng. Manag. 9(5), 991–1002 (2016)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rivero, E., Emblemsvåg, J.: Activity-based life-cycle costing in long-range planning. RAF 6(4), 370–390 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kaplan, R., Anderson, S.: Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing: A Simpler and More Powerful Path to Higher Profits. Harvard Business Press, Boston (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kaplan, R., Anderson, S.: Tool kit: time-driven activity-based costing. Harvard Bus. Rev. 82(11), 131–138 (2004)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Knights, P.: Best-in-class maintenance benchmarks in Chilean open pit mines. CIM Bull. 98(1088), 93 (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universidade do MinhoGuimaraesPortugal
  2. 2.Pontificia Universidad Católica de ValparaisoValparaisoChile

Personalised recommendations