ARTICLE IN PRESS

Reliability Engineering and System Safety ] (]]]]) ]]]]]]

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Reliability Engineering and System Safety

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ress

Business-oriented prioritization: A novel graphical technique

R. Pascual c,, G. Del Castillo a, D. Louit b,c, P. Knights d
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Universidad de Chile, Casilla 2777, Santiago, Chile
b
Komatsu Chile, Av. Americo Vespucio 0631, Quilicura, Santiago, Chile
c
Centro de Minera, Ponticia Universidad Cato
lica de Chile, Av. Vicun
a Mackenna 4860, Santiago, Chile
d
Division of Mining Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Architecture and Information Technology, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Brisbane, 4072, Australia

a r t i c l e in fo abstract

Article history: Traditionally, Pareto analysis has been used to select the most critical components and failure modes of
Received 12 November 2008 a system. A clear disadvantage of this technique is that it requires preselecting a single criterion to
Received in revised form establish priorities. More recently, a graphical log-scatter diagram technique has been proposed. It
15 January 2009
considers three key performance indicators simultaneously: reliability (MTBF), maintainability (MTTR),
Accepted 29 January 2009
and unavailability (D). This technique considers only times and does not include economical effects
explicitly. This article extends both techniques to explicitly consider both direct and indirect costs to
Keywords: prioritize from the point of view of an asset manager or from a maintenance decision-maker, as
Prioritization required. Due to the economic-based approach of this article, cost discounting is also considered inside
Physical asset management
nancial costs such asbut not limited toreliability-related investments. Also, the results are
Maintenance decision-making
displayed on simple and accessible graphs which make them particularly useful for conveying results to
Resource assignment
Criticality non-technical managers. The methodology is illustrated by analyzing a shovel from the copper mine
Subset selection industry, and it clearly shows how the proposed technique facilitates business oriented decisions and
Multicriteria analysis how they should change under different market conditions.
& 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction tactical decision making, as selection of critical systems is present

To meet the increasing challenges of current industrial reality,
organizations require to continuously enhance their capability to
add value and improve the cost-effectiveness of their decision
processes. The decision process includes the selection of those
systems and actions that may render the highest overall savings,
and then, their associated policy resolutions.
Decision making in physical asset management (PAM) is
generally focused on two levels: strategic and tactic. Strategic
level analysis is of greater interest because it involves: (i)
identifying and ranking of candidate systems for improvements;
(ii) system level budgeting and budget forecasts; (iii) system level
performance evaluation; (iv) forecast of future market and
operational conditions. The tactical level, on the other hand,
concerns more specic technical management decisions for the
individual projects. It includes: (i) assessing the causes of
deterioration and determining/selecting candidate solutions; (ii)
assessing benets of the alternatives by life-cycle costing; (iii)
selecting and designing the desired solutions. The prioritization
technique introduced in this work deals with both strategic and
 Corresponding author. Tel.: +56 2 9784906.
E-mail address: rpascual@ing.puc.cl (R. Pascual).
at both management horizons.
The paper is organized as follows: rst, we present a general
review of priority setting in engineering problems and then to
PAM problems. From there, we consider Pareto and Jack knife
diagrams (JKD), which justify the introduction of the so-called
cost scatter diagrams (CSD). An extended case study from a
previous reference is used to illustrate the advantages of the new
technique. Discussion and future work is presented in Section 4.
1.1. Priority setting in the context of engineering
Decision problems in engineering can be classied as evalua-
tion or design problems. When facing an evaluation problem, the
decision maker analyzes a set of discretely predened alterna-
tives. The evaluation step can be done using aggregate value
function approaches and/or outranking approaches. In the rst
group we may mention general techniques such as multi-attribute
utility theory methods [1], simple multi-attribute rating techni-
ques [2], inverse preference methods [3], and analytic hierarchy
process (AHP) [4]. In the group of outranking techniques we
include: ELimination Et Choix Traduisant la REalite (ELECTRE) [5]
and Preference Ranking Organisation METHod for Enrichment
Evaluations (PROMETHEE) [6]. Detailed comparison of these kinds
of methodologies can be found in Zopounidis and Doumpos [7].

0951-8320/$ - see front matter & 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ress.2009.01.013

Please cite this article as: Pascual R, et al. Business-oriented prioritization: A novel graphical technique. Reliab Eng Syst Safety (2009),
doi:10.1016/j.ress.2009.01.013
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
2 R. Pascual et al. / Reliability Engineering and System Safety ] (]]]]) ]]]]]]
For instance, drawbacks of outranking methods arise from the
many rather non-intuitive inputs that are required, i.e., the
preference functions of PROMETHEE. If the number of alternatives
is sizeable, a rank reversal problem may arise in the AHP method.
Previously mentioned generic evaluation techniques have been
used previously in PAM. Bevilacqua [4] describes an application of
the AHP for selecting the best maintenance strategy for an oil
renery. Carnero [8,9], also uses AHP but combines it with factor
analysis. As a drawback, the pairwise comparison required by
AHP may become fairly time consuming if a large number of
alternatives need to be evaluated. Karydas and Gifun [1] use it to
prioritize maintenance in the context of facility management.
Deshpande [10] studies the role of multicriteria priority codes in
the military service parts system and the impact of these codes on
systems performance. Dekker and Scarf [11] describe a ranking
methodology that indicates the expected money loss by deferring
execution of maintenance tasks. They also describe the decision
support system where they implemented such technique and
show a case study from the process industry. In the more general
elds of risk assessment and vulnerability analysis, Hokstad and
Steiro [12] and Einarsson and Rausand [13] provide frameworks
for priority setting. In the rst case, they use a broad denition of
risk that accounts for up to 11 criteria simultaneously.
Cooke et al. [14] develop a ranking tool which uses failure data
and structured judgment to rank and upgrade the basis for
decisions regarding inspection and replacement of underground
pipelines. Chareonsuk et al. [15] propose a multicriteria approach
to the rank and select preventive maintenance intervals using the
PROMETHEE [6], one of the outranking methods for multiple
criteria problems.
In an engineering design problem, the decision maker also
faces the identication of the preferred alternative from a innite
set dened by a set of constraints. The latter case is usually solved
by using mathematical programming techniques. Examples of
design problems in the context of PAM are the multicriteria
project selection [16], the assignment of overhaul funding for
eet of diverse equipment under budget constraint [17] and the
design of maintenance intervention protocols [18]. Mathematical
programming is resource-intensive and relatively complex to
implement.
1.2. Priority setting in PAM
Although previously mentioned methods have been used in
the context of PAM, there are more intuitive techniques that use
the particular properties that relate common use key performance
indicators (KPIs) and facilitate decision making (further described
below). In order to perform the systems selection, a holistic,
life-cycle centered approach can be used. By doing so, the analysis
is not limited to points of view of the maintenance function.
PAM considers ve sequential steps of the life cycle [19,20]:
conceptualization, design, implementation, operation (including
maintenance), and retirement. It must set, control and balance a
set of KPIs such as availability, reliability, productivity, overall
equipment effectivity (OEE), intervention costs, and global cost.
This set of KPIs must be balanced by setting maintenance policies
that may range from corrective (run to failure) to proactive
(system redesign [21]). Of course, setting such policies requires
the availability of resources. As they are usually scarce, a
prioritization process must be established. It must be at system
or subsystem level, or, if they have been selected, at prioritizing
failure modes. Traditionally, Pareto analysis has been used to set
decision priorities. Pareto analysis is highly useful to focus
decision making on a small set of systems/failure modes.
Complementarily, they can also be used to estimate the global
Please cite this article as: Pascual R, et al. Business-oriented prioritization: A novel graphical technique. Reliab Eng Syst Safety (2009),
doi:10.1016/j.ress.2009.01.013
value of a KPI only from the most critical elements, i.e., Al-Hajj and
Horner [22] propose a predictive total cost model built only from
the costs of the most critical sub-systems. A problem with Pareto
is that it requires selecting a single classication criterion.
To overcome this, other classication schemes have been
proposed, i.e., risk priority numbers [23,24] and criticality
numbers [25]. Another example of this type of method is the
multicriteria classication of critical equipments proposed by
Gomez and Ruiz [26]. These schemes build polynomials that
assign a single classication number to each subsystem/failure
mode. Beehler [27] proposes a decision matrix which includes a
set of parameters to rank and select the most critical systems.
Labib [28] and Burhanuddin et al. [29] present a decision making
grid and a case study considering both frequency and downtime
as classication criteria. Knights [30] enhances the concept by
adding total downtime isoquantas to the diagram (also known as
JKD and further described below). As a result, we nd a 2D scatter
diagram that concerns three criteria simultaneously: frequency,
downtime, and unavailability. As it only contains time based
information, it is insensitive to economic effects on the business
cycle, something that is known to affect decision-making
priorities. In order to overcome that, we propose the CSD
methodology in the next section.
To be able to assess savings, a cost estimation process is
needed. Consequently, a cost structure is required. In this article
the global cost is used, as dened in Jourden et al. [25]. It is
composed of four terms: intervention costs, holding costs,
reliability related investments, and consequential costs. Interven-
tion costs include the value of spares and labour. Holding costs
represent the nancial cost of having spares available on-site. The
reliability related investments term considers all acquisitions
made to attenuate the effect of maintenance (i.e., redundant
equipment, stock piles, and insurances). The nal term refers to
downtime costs and other costs associated with move from/to a
standard production method for maintenance reasons (Fig. 1).
1.3. Jack knife diagrams
The total downtime MDT j of a system during a given period of
time T, due to an intervention code (or code), is the product of the
number of times nj that this code occurred and the mean time out
of service MTOSj the system:
MDT j T nj T  MTOSj T (1)
If all codes are displayed in an n vs. MTOS diagram, it is possible
to discriminate those codes that cause the major downtime, but it
is also possible to assess if it is due to high frequency of to high
time out of service. A disadvantage of using Eq. (1) directly is that
iso-downtime curves are drawn as hyperbolaes. This can be easily
overcome by using the identity:
log MDT j T log nj T log MTOSj T (2)
Intervention
costs
Holding
costs
Reliability related
investments
Penalty
costs
Fig. 1. Components of the global cost.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

R. Pascual et al. / Reliability Engineering and System Safety ] (]]]]) ]]]]]] 3

A con on using Eqs. (1) and (2) is that they depend on T. If it is
desired to compare the system performance at two different
intervals of time (or two different systems), they would have to be
of the same length to make a logical comparison. One way to
overcome that is by using the unavailability, as it is explained
below.
Unavailability (D) is the product of two factors; the frequency
of interventions (f ) that occurred in a particular time frame and
the average associated time-out-of-service (MTOS), which, in the
case of a failure corresponds to the mean time to repair (MTTR):
Dj f j  MTOSj
Eq. (3) offers the possibility to produce a diagram to show those
interventions that consume more availability and be able to
discriminate if it is due to high frequency or to high time-out-of-
service. Again
log Dj log f j log MTOSj
produces a straight line on a loglog diagram. This enhanced way
of producing the diagram shown in Fig. 2, permits drawing iso-
unavailability lines which are easy to interpret; i.e., one can draw
0.2
0.18
0.16
0.14
Unavailability
the line of D 1%. Any code above that line eats more than 1% of
the system availability.
We observe that, in general, codes related to preventive
maintenance affect the position of corrective codes. If this is not
occurring, the preventive action is not being technically effective.
Let us take for example the inspection of a hose of a shovel. If is
not done well or with enough frequency, the failure rate of this
component will probably increase.
A modied version of the JKD is proposed in Karim et al. [31].
In their case, the axes variables are number of defects and cost of
defects in a setting of evaluating construction contractors
(3)
performance.
2. Cost scatter diagrams
As mentioned before, JKD consider only times and frequencies,
(4) and correspondingly, no economic effect is explicitly taken into
account. In what follows, we propose the CSD. The intention is to
enhance the graphical analysis by adding the cost dimension.
2.1. Model formulation
The expected maintenance global cost per unit time cg of a
given system can be obtained by summing the gains from all
interventions (i.e., failures, preventive replacements, inspections,
and other shutdown actions):
X
n
cg ci;j cf ;j csi;j ca;j f j  MTOSj (5)

0.12 j1

0.1
X
n
cg cgj Dj (6)
0.08
j1

0.06 where MTOSj is the mean downtime associated to each interven-

0.04 tion j, f j corresponds to the frequency of intervention j, ci;j is the
direct cost per unit time of intervention j (spares, labour,
0.02 mobilization, planning, and administration), cf ;j corresponds to
the downtime cost per unit time, ca;j is the holding cost due to
0
spares and its amortizations per unit time, csi;j stands for the cost
1 2 11 3 10 7 12 8 5 15 6 9 4 17 14 16 13
for having redundancies and other reliability-related investments,
Code
per unit time.
Fig. 2. Pareto analysis for unavailability, taken from the case study. Individual and Notice that there are two terms that acknowledge investments,
aggregate contributions are shown. ca;j and csi;j . Each of these terms, in order to be considered in one

Table 1
Model parameters.

ID Description Qty. Duration (min) Int. cost (USD/int.) a Capital spares (104 USD)

1 Electrical inspections 30 1015 80 0 5.5

2 Damaged feeder cable 15 785 300 0 300
3 Change of substation 27 690 50 1 15
4 Coupling repairs or checks 15 225 500 0 7
5 Power cuts to substations 21 395 40 1 1.8
6 Rope limit protection 10 277 50 1 1.5
7 Auxiliary motors 13 600 300 1 35
8 Main motors 12 555 400 1 80
9 Lighting system 26 240 500 1 4
10 Overload relay 23 685 2000 1 70
11 Motor over temperature 36 745 800 1 1
12 Earth faults 7 575 50 1 5
13 Miscellaneous 9 115 100 1 12
14 Control system 7 165 600 1 23
15 Air compressor 8 355 700 1 1
16 Operator controls 5 155 200 1 8
17 Over current faults 6 220 400 1 3

Quantity recorded in a one-month period. Costs have been estimated arbitrarily.

Please cite this article as: Pascual R, et al. Business-oriented prioritization: A novel graphical technique. Reliab Eng Syst Safety (2009),
doi:10.1016/j.ress.2009.01.013
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

4 R. Pascual et al. / Reliability Engineering and System Safety ] (]]]]) ]]]]]]

generic time unit, must be transformed in two senses: as an Let us observe in Eqs. (7) and (8) that JKD and CSD produce the
investment equally distributed over time and as a nancial cost same results when
[25]. The cost rate cgj can be considered as a weight for each
acf bci
unavailability. As MTOSj considers the full logistic cycle for each
intervention: such situation arises often in the mining industry as the
opportunity costs per unit time are large and no alternative
cij MTOSj C ij (7) production method is available: high unavailability means high
global cost.
where C ij is the mean cost charged for the work order or invoice.
The consequential cost per unit time out of service is expressed as

cfj acf (8) 3. Case study

where a is a factor between 0 and 1 according to the planning
level of the intervention, the existence of stock piles and
equipment redundancy and alternative production methods
[32]. a represents the attained level of opportunistic maintenance
of the action. For example, an inspection is an intervention that is
planned to minimize effects for production, so a ! 0. In other
cases, the estimation of a requires sensitivity analysis as it will be
described in the case study. An example: what is the effect of a
haul truck failure on the production program when there is a haul
truck redundancy of 11 out of 10?
104
8 2
12
(USD/hour-out-of-service)
Table 1 is taken from Knights [30] and lists the unplanned
downtime recorded for electrical failures in a eet of cable shovels
at an open pit copper mine located in northern Chile, over a one-
month period. The cost terms have been added and do not
represent the actual case.
The JKD is shown in Fig. 4(a). The ve most critical
interventions when using the availability criterion are the
following codes: 1, 2, 3, 10, and 11. Fig. 3 shows the 3D version
of the CSD (Eq. (5)). It has been simplied to its 2D version
(Eq. (6)) in Fig. 6(a). There, it can be observed that the intervention
codes most critical for the business are: 2, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 12
(highlighted in both gures). This information can be added to a
standard JKD in order to study the effect of the global cost in the
selection of the most critical components (Fig. 4(b)): it can be
10 noticed that codes 1 and 3 are important for the availability of the
11
system, but, they are not as critical for the business, so their
7

analysis can be postponed in front of components 7 and 2 which

15 are more critical for the global cost.
Specific global cost

5 9
17 14 6 The analysis can also be made using only intervention costs
16
13 (Fig. 5). In this case the most critical codes are: 4, 9, 10, and 11. Of
103 4 course, this approach would leave in a second plane various
components which are critical for the business and not so much
for the maintenance budget. Anyway, this version of CSD can be
13 very helpful for service-oriented organizations.
Fig. 6(b) shows the inuence of changes in the business cycle.
The product has reduced its price by 75% with respect to the
102
reference value. Points move to the left as the global cost has been
100.1
reduced, depending on the a factor for each intervention.
(h 0.05
ou MT Fig. 7 shows a sensitivity analysis W.R.T. a. The a values
r-o OS
ut- have been evaluated in the range 0; 1. Accordingly, it generates
of- r)
/hou lines instead of points in the CSD. They show the impact of
se
rvi nc y (1
ce 10-0.8 que moving from fully opportunistic interventions to fully unplanned
) 0.007 Fre
(and without contingency plan) interventions. This information
Fig. 3. Cost scatter diagram. 3D version. Points marked with a cross are the most provides new insight for prioritization. It can be taken as a version
critical for the global cost. of a Tornado diagram [33].

12 12
MTOS (hour-out-of-service)
MTOS (hour-out-of-service)

100 Feeder
Cable 2 D
100
=2 2
Iso 8 7 8 7
15 -u .3% 15
na
va
10-0.2 17 ila
bil
Inspections
1 10-0.2 17
1
16 ity 16 10
10
6 6
3 3
10-0.4 14 10-0.4 14
11 11
5 5

10-0.6 4 10-0.6 4
13 13

10-0.8 9 10-0.8 9
0.007 0.05 0.007 0.05

Frequency (1/hour) Frequency (1/hour)

Fig. 4. Jack knife diagrams. Cutting axes have been drawn in the mean value of each criterion. Notice that the enriched JKD corresponds to a special case of Fig. 3 when it is
observed above. Points marked with a cross are the most critical for the global cost. (a) Standard JKD. (b) Enriched JKD.

Please cite this article as: Pascual R, et al. Business-oriented prioritization: A novel graphical technique. Reliab Eng Syst Safety (2009),
doi:10.1016/j.ress.2009.01.013
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

R. Pascual et al. / Reliability Engineering and System Safety ] (]]]]) ]]]]]] 5

The methodology has been implemented in a open-access 10-1

Web-based decision support system called PAM [34].

3.1. Trend analysis

Another benet from CSD is that they permit visualizing trends 1

2 11

Unavailability
in physical asset performance. Fig. 8 shows the evolution of the 3 10
ve critical case study during a period of time. This diagram can 127 8
be obtained by superposing CSDs from different periods of time. It 10-2 5 15
can be observed that: codes 2, 7, and 10 have reduced its global 6
cost per unit time from the rst period of analysis to the second. 4 17 9
Only code 10 has reduced its unavailability signicantly. Code 11 16 14
remains essentially at the same point, while code 8 has worsened 13
its situation both in unavailability as well as on its global cost.
Changes in the position of points are the result of modied asset
management policies and strategies, but they can also be the
result of changes in the business cycle as the specic global cost is 10-3
102 103 104 105
also a function of it.
Specific global cost (USD/hour-out-of-service)

3.2. Handling parameter uncertainty Fig. 7. Sensitivity analysis vs. a.

Uncertainty in the parameters for each code (i.e., the

economical effect on production or the frequency of occurrence)

10-1 10-1

8'
64
(U
SD

1
/h

2' 11'
r)

Unavailability
Unavailability

2 11
3 10
12 7 8 7'
10-2 5
10-2
15
10'
6
4 9
17

16 14

13

10-3 10-3
101 102 103 104 102 103 104
Intervention Cost (USD/hour-out-of-service) Specific global cost (USD/hour-out-of-service)

Fig. 5. Intervention costs scatter diagram. Fig. 8. Trend analysis using CSD.

10-1 10-1
15 10
3 3
(U (U
SD SD
/h 24 /h
r) (U r)
49 SD
(U /h
SD 1 r)
1
/h
Unavailability
Unavailability

r) 2 11 2 11
3 10 3 10
12 7 8 12 7 8
10-2 5 10-2 5
15 15
6 6
4 9 17 4 9
17
16 14 16 14
13 13

10-3 10-3 2
102 103 104 10 103 104
Specific global cost (USD/hour-out-of-service) Specific global cost (USD/hour-out-of-service)

Fig. 6. 2D-CSD for different market conditions. (a) Reference consequential cost. (b) 25% of reference consequential cost.

Please cite this article as: Pascual R, et al. Business-oriented prioritization: A novel graphical technique. Reliab Eng Syst Safety (2009),
doi:10.1016/j.ress.2009.01.013
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
6 R. Pascual et al. / Reliability Engineering and System Safety ] (]]]]) ]]]]]]
can be easily handled by using circles instead of dots or lines. Of
course, that would require at least two extra parameters for the
MTOS and the specic global cost (i.e., standard deviations).
3.3. Advantages of CSD
A CSD shows several advantages over existing prioritization
schemes:
 It is business oriented, as it considers the global costs. This
helps to align the maintenance function with the organiza-
tions strategic goals. Priority changes produced by changes in
the business cycle are clearly observed.
 It is intuitive, all axes in the graphic represent physical,
commonly used KPIs in maintenance and PAM.
 It is easy to implement, input data can be found in standard
maintenance information systems and ERPs.
 It is graphical, and explicitly shows the relationships between
key variables in the asset decision-making processes.
 It is multicriteria, different points of view are taken into
account simply by changing the view angle of the CSD.
 It allows trend analysis, and by doing so, analyze the effect of
decisions made in time.
 It is a sensitivity analysis tool, as it can easily show the impact
of a given measure on the KPIs.
4. Final comments
This work has introduced a novel decision support tool to
select systems and failure modes from a business oriented point of
view. CSD provide an opportunity to graphically explore improve-
ment opportunities using business oriented KPIs such as global
costs, intervention costs, availability, frequency, and time-out-of-
service. The technique overcomes the disadvantages of both
Pareto and JKD as it includes them but also adds a global-cost
centered perspective. CSD provide additional information con-
cerning the economical, both direct and indirect, of maintenance
interventions. Unlike more generic multicriteria decision aid
techniques such as AHP and other outranking methods, it is easy
to understand CSD in terms of standard KPIs. CSD are based on a
cost and reliability model that is closely related to PAM and is
based on equations that relate all KPIs. The application of the
proposed technique can range from strategic to operational levels
as it is fairly general and easy to implement and use.
Acknowledgements
Thanks are due to the reviewers of the paper for their
constructive criticism, which were useful to improve an earlier
version of this manuscript. The authors wish to acknowledge the
partial nancial support of this study by the FOndo Nacional de
DEsarrollo Cientico Y Tecnologico (FONDECYT) of the Chilean
government (project 1090079).
References
[1] Karydas DM, Gifun JF. A method for the efcient prioritization of
infrastructure renewal projects. Reliability Engineering and System Safety
2006;91:8499.
Please cite this article as: Pascual R, et al. Business-oriented prioritization: A novel graphical technique. Reliab Eng Syst Safety (2009),
doi:10.1016/j.ress.2009.01.013
[2] Edwards W. How to use multi-attribute utility measurement for social
decision making. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Management and Cybernetics
1977;SMC-7(5).
[3] Lagreze EJ, Shakun MF. Decision support systems for semi-structured buying
decisions. European Journal of Operational Research 1984;16:4858.
[4] Bevilacqua M, Braglia M. The analytic hierarchy process applied to
maintenance strategy selection. Reliability Engineering and System Safety
2000;70:7183.
[5] Roy B. How outranking helps multiple criteria decision making. In: Cochrane
JL, Zeleny M, editors. Multiple criteria decision-making. University of South
Carolina Press; 1973.
[6] Brans JP, Vincke PH, Mareschal B. How to select and how to rank project: the
PROMETHEE method. European Journal of Operational Research 1986;24:
22838.
[7] Zopounidis C, Doumpos M. Multi-criteria decision aid in nancial decision
making: methodologies and literature review. Journal of Multi-Criteria
Decision Analysis 2002;11(45):16786.
[8] Carnero MC. Selection of diagnostic techniques and instrumentation in a
predictive maintenance program: a case study. Decision Support Systems
2005;38:53955.
[9] Carnero MC. An evaluation system of the setting up of predictive maintenance
programmes. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 2006;91:94563.
[10] Deshpande V, Cohen MA, Donohue K. An empirical study of service
differentiation for weapon system service parts. Operations Research 2003;
51(4):51830.
[11] Dekker R, Scarf Ph. On the impact of optimisation models in maintenance
decision making: the state of the art. Reliability Engineering and System
Safety 1998;60:1119.
[12] Hokstad P, Steiro T. Overall strategy for risk evaluation and priority setting of
risk regulations. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 2006;91:10011.
[13] Einarsson S, Rausand M. An approach to vulnerability analysis of complex
industrial systems. Risk Analysis 1998;18(5):53546.
[14] Cooke RM, Jager E, Lewandowski D. Reliability model for underground gas
pipelines. Case Studies in Reliability and Maintenance; 2003.
[15] Chareonsuk Ch, Nagarur N, Tabucanon MT. A multicriteria approach to the
selection of preventive maintenance intervals. International Journal of
Production Economics 1997;49:5564.
[16] Shohet IM, Perelstein E. Decision support model for the allocation of
resources in rehabilitation projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management-ASCE 2004;130(2):24957.
[17] Goodhart CA. Depot-level maintenance planning for marine corps ground
equipment. Military Operations Research 1999;4(3):7789.
[18] Grierson DE. Pareto multi-criteria decision making. Advanced Engineering
Informatics 2008;22(3):37184.
[19] PAS-55, Asset Management, British Standards Institute; 2004.
[20] AFNOR, Recueil des normes franc- aise X 06, X 50, X 60, AFNOR; 1994.
[21] Kaplan RS, Norton DP. The balanced scorecardmeasures that drive
performance. Harvard Business Review 1992;70(1):719.
[22] Al-hajj A, Horner M. Modelling the running costs of buildings. Construction
Management & Economics 1998;16:45970.
[23] Moubray J. Reliability-centered maintenance. 2nd ed. London: Butterworth-
Heinemann; 1997.
[24] Tam ASB, Price JWH. A maintenance prioritisation approach to maximise
return on investment subject to time and budget constraints. Journal of
Quality in Maintenance Engineering 2008;14(3):27289.
[25] Jourden, et al. Pratique de la maintenance industrielle. Dunod Ed; 1998.
[26] Gomez FC, Ruiz JJ. Maintenance strategy based on a multicriterion classica-
tion of equipments. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 2006;91:
44451.
[27] Beehler ME. Reliability centered maintenance for transmission systems. IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery 1997;12(2):10238.
[28] Labib AW. World-class maintenance using a computerised maintenance
management system. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering 1998;
4(1):6675.
[29] Burhanuddin MA, Ahmad AR, Desa MI. An application of decision making grid
to improve maintenance strategies in small and medium industries. IEEE
conference on industrial electronics and applications 2007;23(25):45560.
[30] Knights PF. Downtime priorities, Jack-knife diagrams, and the business cycle.
Maintenance Journal 2004;17(2):1421 Melbourne, Australia.
[31] Karim K, Marosszeky M, Davis S. Managing subcontractor supply chain for
quality in construction engineering. Construction and Architectural Manage-
ment 2006;13(1):2742.
[32] Pascual R, Meruane V, Rey PA. On the effect of downtime costs and budget
constraint on preventive and replacement policies. Reliability Engineering
and System Safety 2008;93:14451.
[33] Howard RA. Decision analysis: practice and promise. Management Science
1988;34(6):67995.
[34] hhttp://opam.ing.uchile.cli (accesed on July 2008).