Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Assessing the Potential for Resilient Performance in Rolling Stock Maintenance: The Pitstop Case

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Transportation Systems

Part of the book series: Asset Analytics ((ASAN))

  • 677 Accesses

Abstract

Unexpected failures of physical assets are a primary operational risk to asset-intensive organisations. Managing these unexpected failures is essential for reliable performance. The main railway operator in the Netherlands expects more unexpected failures as a result of the introduction of new rolling stock in an already highly utilised railway system. One of the challenges of maintenance management is to determine if the current corrective maintenance system has the capabilities to cope with an increase of unexpected defects of rolling stock in the upcoming years or that further improvements are required. In the last decade, Resilience Engineering has emerged as a new paradigm in a number of high-risk sectors to detect and respond to unexpected events effectively. Attempts to apply this concept outside these sectors have so far been limited. The main purpose of this study is to explore the applicability of Resilience Engineering in the field of rolling stock maintenance by assessing the potential for resilient performance using an in-depth case study. A comparison between the characteristics of corrective maintenance and emergency healthcare showed that the studied contexts are highly comparable which suggests that the concept of Resilience Engineering may also apply to corrective maintenance of rolling stock. This study contributes to theory by replicating and adapting Resilience Engineering for corrective maintenance of rolling stock and provides maintenance practitioners guidance on how to measure current resilience and identify improvement areas.

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 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover 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

  • Amundson, S. D. (1998). Relationships between theory-driven empirical research in operations management and other disciplines. Journal of Operations Management, 16(4), 341–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birkland, T. A., & Waterman, S. (2009). The politics and policy challenges of disaster resilience. In C. Nemeth & E. Hollnagel (Eds.), Resilience engineering perspectives: Preparation and restoration (Vol. 2, pp. 15–38). Farnham, UK: Ashgate Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boer, H., Holweg, M., Kilduff, M., Pagell, M., Schmenner, R., & Voss, C. (2015). Making a meaningful contribution to theory. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 35(9), 1231–1252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruneau, M., Chang, S. E., Eguchi, R. T., Lee, G. C., O’Rourke, T. D., Reinhorn, A. M., et al. (2003). A framework to quantitatively assess and enhance the seismic resilience of communities. Earthquake Spectra, 19(4), 733–752.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Checkland, P. (2000). Soft systems methodology: A thirty year retrospective. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 17, S11–S58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dekker, S. W., & Woods, D. D. (2010). The high reliability organization perspective. In Human factors in aviation (2nd ed., pp. 123–143). Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dhillon, B. S. (2002). Engineering maintenance: A modern approach. CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fairbanks, R. J., Wears, R. L., Woods, D. D., Hollnagel, E., Plsek, P., & Cook, R. I. (2014). Resilience and resilience engineering in health care. Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety, 40(8), 376–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gits, C. (1992). Design of maintenance concepts. International Journal of Production Economics, 24(3), 217–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollnagel, E. (2010). How resilient is your organisation? An introduction to the resilience analysis grid (RAG). In Sustainable transformation: Building a resilient organization.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollnagel, E. (2011). Epilogue: RAG—The resilience analysis grid. In E. Hollnagel, J. Pariès, D. D. Woods, & J. Wreathall (Eds.), Resilience engineering in practice: A guidebook (pp. 275–296). Farnham, UK: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollnagel, E. (2012). Coping with complexity: Past, present and future. Cognition, Technology & Work, 14(3), 199–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollnagel, E., & Woods, D. D. (2006). Epilogue: Resilience engineering precepts. In Resilience engineering: Concepts and precepts (pp. 347–358).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollnagel, E., Woods, D. D., & Leveson, N. (2007). Resilience engineering: Concepts and precepts. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • La Porte, T. R. (1996). High reliability organizations: Unlikely, demanding and at risk. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 4(2), 60–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Labaka, L., Hernantes, J., & Sarriegi, J. M. (2015). Resilience framework for critical infrastructures: An empirical study in a nuclear plant. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 141, 92–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LaRiviere, J., McAfee, P., Rao, J., Narayanan, V. K., & Sun, W. (2016). Where predictive analytics is having the biggest impact. Harvard Business Review.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nemeth, C., & Herrera, I. (2015). Building change: Resilience engineering after ten years. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 141, 1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nemeth, C., Wears, R. L., Patel, S., Rosen, G., & Cook, R. (2011). Resilience is not control: Healthcare, crisis management, and ICT. Cognition, Technology & Work, 13(3), 189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NS. (2017). Programma Overstag. Onnen: Nederlandse Spoorwegen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patriarca, R., Bergström, J., Di Gravio, G., & Costantino, F. (2018). Resilience engineering: Current status of the research and future challenges. Safety Science, 102, 79–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patterson, E. S., Roth, E. M., Woods, D. D., Chow, R., & Gomes, J. O. (2004). Handoff strategies in settings with high consequences for failure: Lessons for health care operations. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 16(2), 125–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pettersen, K. A., & Schulman, P. R. (2016). Drift, adaptation, resilience and reliability: Toward an empirical clarification. Safety Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pilkington, A., & Fitzgerald, R. (2006). Operations management themes, concepts and relationships: A forward retrospective of IJOPM. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 26(11), 1255–1275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Praetorius, G., & Hollnagel, E. (2014). Control and resilience within the maritime traffic management domain. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 8(4), 303–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rankin, A., Lundberg, J., Woltjer, R., Rollenhagen, C., & Hollnagel, E. (2014). Resilience in everyday operations: A framework for analyzing adaptations in high-risk work. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 8(1), 78–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Righi, A. W., Saurin, T. A., & Wachs, P. (2015). A systematic literature review of resilience engineering: Research areas and a research agenda proposal. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 141, 142–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, K. H. (1990). Some characteristics of one type of high reliability organization. Organization Science, 1(2), 160–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roe, E., & Schulman, P. R. (2008). High reliability management.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schöbel, M. (2009). Trust in high-reliability organizations. Social Science Information, 48(2), 315–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schulman, P. R. (1993). The negotiated order of organizational reliability. Administration & Society, 25(3), 353–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, A. W., & Schraagen, J. M. C. (2017). Beyond procedures: Team reflection in a rail control centre to enhance resilience. Safety Science, 91, 181–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sundstrom, G., & Hollnagel, E. (2011). Governance and control of financial systems: A resilience engineering perspective. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutcliffe, K. M. (2011). High reliability organizations (HROs). Best Practice & Research Clinical Anaesthesiology, 25(2), 133–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutcliffe, K. M., & Vogus, T. J. (2003). Organizing for resilience. In K. Cameron, J. Dutton, & R. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tiddens, W. W. (2018). Setting sail towards predictive maintenance: Developing tools to conquer difficulties in the implementation of maintenance analytics. Enschede: University of Twente.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trist, E. (1981). The evolution of socio-technical systems (Occasional Paper 2).

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Vorm, J., van der Beek, D., Bos, E., Steijger, N., Gallis, R., & Zwetsloot, G. (2011). Images of resilience: The resilience analysis grid applicable at several organizational levels? Paris: Transvalor-Presses des Mines.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Dongen, L. A. M. (2015). Asset management: A maintenance engineer’s view. International Journal of Performability Engineering, 11(2), 181–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veldman, J., Wortmann, H., & Klingenberg, W. (2011). Typology of condition based maintenance. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, 17(2), 183–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wacker, J. G. (1998). A definition of theory: Research guidelines for different theory-building research methods in operations management. Journal of Operations Management, 16(4), 361–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wears, R., Perry, S., Anders, S., & Woods, D. (2008). Resilience in the emergency department. Resilience engineering: Remaining open to the possibility of failure. Ashgate studies in resilience engineering (pp. 197–214). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. (1987). Organizational culture as a source of high reliability. California Management Review, 29(2), 112–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2008). Organizing for high reliability: Processes of collective mindfulness. Crisis Management, 3, 81–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wildavsky, A. B. (1989). Searching for safety (Vol. 10). Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wreathall, J. (2009). Measuring resilience. In C. Nemeth, E. Hollnagel, & S. Dekker (Eds.), Resilience engineering perspectives: Preparation and restoration (Vol. 2, pp. 95–114). Ashgate Publishing Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Nederlandse Spoorwegen (NS). The authors thank the NS organisation who provided insight and expertise that greatly assisted the research, although they may not agree with all of the interpretations or conclusions of this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Maintenance Engineering Group, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands

    Jan-Jaap Moerman, A. J. J. Braaksma & Leo A. M. van Dongen

  2. Netherlands Railways, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Jan-Jaap Moerman & Leo A. M. van Dongen

Authors
  1. Jan-Jaap Moerman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. J. J. Braaksma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Leo A. M. van Dongen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jan-Jaap Moerman .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Operation, Maintenance and Acoustics, Luleå University of Technology, Luleå, Sweden

    Sarbjeet Singh

  2. Maintenance Engineering Group, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands

    Alberto Martinetti

  3. Transport Risk Management Centre, Imperial College of London, London, UK

    Arnab Majumdar

  4. Maintenance Engineering Group, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands

    Leo A. M. van Dongen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Moerman, JJ., Braaksma, A.J.J., van Dongen, L.A.M. (2019). Assessing the Potential for Resilient Performance in Rolling Stock Maintenance: The Pitstop Case. In: Singh, S., Martinetti, A., Majumdar, A., Dongen, L. (eds) Transportation Systems. Asset Analytics. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-32-9323-6_12

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation