Maintenance Planning Key Process Area: Case Study at Oil & Gas Industry in

Indonesia

Rahmat Nurcahyo1, Dedy Darmawan, Yadrifil Jannis, Ary Kurniati, Muhammad Habiburrahman
1
Industrial Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering Universitas Indonesia, Kampus UI, Indonesia
(rahmat@eng.ui.ac.id)

Abstract - Maintenance planning contributes positively in
effective maintenance activity. This research summarized 89
Key Process Area (KPA) related to maintenance planning
from seven main previous research in maintenance
management. Delphi method was used to identify 12 main
KPA. Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) method was used
to determine priority of each KPA. The higher value of
KPA means higher criticality and contribution to successful
maintenance planning. This research concluded the priority
of KPA from the most critical to the less critical are shut
down planning, work pack planning, job forecast and
schedule, material management, e-maintenance,
communication and coordination, measurement and control,
preventive maintenance job plan, maintenance organization,
maintenance method, maintenance budget and outsourcing.
Keywords - Analytical hierarchy process; Capability
maturity model; Delphi method; Key process area
Maintenance planning.
I. INTRODUCTION
Maintenance is defined as the combination of all
technical and administrative actions, intended to retain an
item in, or restore it to, a state in which it can perform a
required function [1]. Maintenance is in the heart of the
production system that is part of a global enterprise. The
success of the enterprise is highly dependent on the output
of the production system which cannot be obtained
without highly effective and efficient maintenance [2].
Maintenance benefit at least could be categorized into
five headings: ensuring the plant functionality (such as
availability, reliability, product quality); ensuring the
plant achieves its design life; ensuring plant and
environmental safety; ensuring cost-effectiveness in
maintenance and effective use of resources [3].
Maintenance planning positively contributes in
effective maintenance activity. Planning will assure all
required resources are available in scheduled time,
accurate quantity and quality, and reasonable cost.
Moreover, maintenance planning also contributes to
health, safety and environment [4].
Maintenance planning can be divided into three
levels: strategic, medium and short term. Derived form
corporate strategic plan, the maintenance strategic plan is
developed from which medium and short-term plans are
extracted [5]. However, most companies do not realize
the importance of comprehensive maintenance planning.
They are stuck in the short-term planning and forget about
aspects of strategic planning and medium-term planning.
In the case study at medium scale offshore oil and gas
company which operates at Indonesia, immature of
maintenance planning process is reflected in some
activities as significance fluctuation of number of work
order, delay time between two maintenance jobs which
generates idle time of field technicians, unbalance work
distribution between technician, and difficulties to meet
work completion target.
The phenomena indicate of low capability maturity in
maintenance planning and scheduling aspect. Capability
Maturity Model (CMM) approach could be used to
improve the capability of organization. This method has
been proven to identify the required process capability of
organization as well as its maturity level [6]. CMM
presents an appropriate structure through which
maintenance programs may be designed, on-going
programs audited, continuous improvement activities
proposed and CMM presents as an internal and external
benchmarking tool [7]. Moreover, CMM proposes a
structured guide allowing the evolution of maintenance
decision making capabilities through progressively
increasing maturity levels [8].
II. METHODOLOGY
A Literature Review
A.1 Maintenace Management
A model [2] introduce a graphical model which
explain the positive relation between maintenance with
other function within global enterprise, in which
maintenance is in the heart of the production system (Fig.
1).
Fig. 1. Maintenance in relation of input-output model of the enterprise
The quality of maintenance will directly impact to the
output of production system (quality, quantity, and safety)
and determine the profitability level of the enterprise.
Objectives of effective maintenance are [3,9,10] (a)
Maximise production capacity as readiness of production
facilities; (b) Ability to deliver product within acceptable
quality; (c) Minimize unit cost of product; (d) Reduce risk

The authors acknowledge the financial support of

Universitas Indonesia through Hibah PITTA UI 2018 with
contract number 2514/UN2.R.1/HKP.05.00/2018.

978-1-5386-6786-6/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE 1704

 Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE IEEM
in failure to meet customer expectation related in term of
quantity, quality and promise schedule; (e) Ensure
employee and public health and safety compliances
during plant operation; (f) Minimize risk level as low as
reasonable practice in term of environment compliances
A.2 Maintenace Planning
Maintenance planning consists of three activities
[11]: (a) Planning is development of detail work program
from start to end, to ensure maintenance job visible to be
executed; (b) Work coordination, any efforts related to
work coordination, intra and extra department, to ensure
all required resources are prepared; (c) Schedule, to set
work sequence, minimize delay time, optimize resource
utilization
There are 3 levels of maintenance planning derived
from corporate vision and mission [5]: strategic planning,
medium-term planning (tactical planning), and short-term
planning (scheduling).
A.3 Capability Maturity Model (CMM) and Maintenance
CMM initially developed by Software Engineering
Institute (SEI) based at Carnegie Mellon University.
CMM was designed to guide software organizations in
selecting process improvement strategies by determining
current process maturity and identifying the few issues
most critical to software quality and process improvement
[12]. CMM is a model that contains key elements of
effective processes for one or more disciplines, as well as
describe an evolutionary improvement path from ad hoc
condition and immature process into consistently
disciplined and mature.
In general, the structure of CMM can be described as
[13]: (a) Number of levels; (b) Description of each level
(e.g. Initial, repeatable, defined, managed, optimizing);
(c) Characteristic which expected in the organization for
each level; (d) Number of dimension (process area or
capability element); (e) Description of each element or
activity for each dimension; (f) Description of each
activity for each level of maturity. The structure of CMM
has maturity level which indicates process capability and
contains key process area (KPA). KPA is determined to
achieve goals organized by common features. Common
features address implementation or institutionalization
and contain key practices. Key practices describe
infrastructure and activities.
In maintenance disciplines Macchi & Fumagalli [14]
provided generic maturity level (table 1).
TABLE I
THE SCORECARD DEFINING THE SCALE OF MATURITY LEVELS
Maturity level Description
ML-5: Optimizing Process is managed by ensuring the continuous
improvement; causes of defects and problems in
the processes are identified, taking actions in
order to prevent problems from occurring in the
ML-4: Process performance is measured, and causes of
Quantitatively special variations are detected; quantitative
managed analyses are conducted, indeed a good balance is
reached between the quantitative and qualitative
analysis; process management is fulfilled.
1705
ML-3: Defined The process is planned; semi-quantitative analyses
are done periodically to define good
practices/management procedures; process
management depends on some specific constraints
for the organizational responsibility or the
technical systems
ML-2: Managed The process is partially planned; performance
analysis is mostly dependent on individual
practitioners’ experience and competences;
process management is weak because of
deficiencies in the organizational or in the
technical systems
ML-1: Initial The process is weakly controlled, or not
controlled at all
A.4 Delphi Method
Delphi Technique is initially developed by NC
Dalkey, Helmer and colleagues in the 1950s RAND
Corporation. This method provides a systematic and
iterative approach that involves a panel of experts in their
field. The experts are not met in person (face to face), and
the identity of each expert is hidden so that each expert
does not know the identity of another expert. It aims to
avoid the domination of other experts and can minimize
bias opinion. There are four critical stages in the Delphi
method [15]: (a) Exploration opinions; (b) Summarizing
the experts opinions and communicate it back; (c)
Looking for information on reasons related experts on
opinions expressed; (d) Evaluation
A.5 AHP Decision Support Technique
The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), introduced
by Thomas Saaty, is a structured technique for organizing
and analyzing complex decisions, based on mathematics
and psychology [16]. It provides a comprehensive and
rational framework for structuring a decision problem, for
representing and quantifying its elements, for relating
those elements to overall goals, and for evaluating
alternative solutions.
B. Research Method
To obtain KPA using CMM in maintenance planning,
this research methods as follows:
a. Delphi method to identify KPA in maintenance
planning, using previous research as input. The
respondents are maintenance practitioners in which
having related work experience more than 10 years in
oil and gas industry.
b. Calculate the weighting factors of KPA to determine
priority of each KPA. The characteristics of KPA are
derived from literature reference which associates with
each KPA
C. Limitations
The limitations of this research are:
• Research was conducted on maintenance planning
activities in an off shore oil and gas company in
Indonesia.
• Research was conducted on aspects that related to
maintenance planning process.
 Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE IEEM

III. RESULTS ROQ); Use of Pareto law for the regulation of materials
and parts
A. Maintenance Planning KPA k. Measurement and Control; Work order management;
The effectiveness of Delphi process requires Management of changes in maintenance (management of
competence Subject Matter Expert (SME), in which change) Key performance indicators (KPI) [4].
practitioners in maintenance planning and maintenance l. Maintenance Budget; Maintenance budget; Investment
engineering involves. The SME’s consist of experts with planning; Cost allocation [17].
broad experience (at least 10 years) in maintenance
activities. There are Maintenance Manager, B. Process Area (PA) Prioritization in Maintenance
Superintendent, Supervisor, Planning Engineer and Planning AHP Pair Wise Comparison
Reliability Engineer. The maintenance planning PA might have different
This research summarized seven main previous prioritization, in which weight factor shall be applied to
research in maintenance management determine the relative importance between each capability
[5,7,11,14,17,18,19] to identify KPA which contribute to element. AHP method is used to determine importance
effective maintenance. The results are 89 KPA which are level of identified PA. AHP Respondent is same with
used to construct a questioner for the SME. Delphi respondent, consist of 6 SME in maintenance.
Each SME must choose the elements which related to They compare the pair combination of 12 KPA using 1 up
maintenance planning process, Threshold process areas or to 9 Saaty AHP scale.
elements to be considered as maintenance planning pillar a. Consistency Test
is equal or greater of 75%. After that, similar elements Each respondent feedback on AHP pair wise
then merged, where final process area in maintenance comparison needs to be checked with consistency test to
planning consists of 12 elements. ensure the respondent’s feedback is consistent and
trustworthy.
a. Maintenance Method; run to failure; preventive The allowable limit of inconsistency shall not
maintenance; condition-based maintenance; design exceed 10%. During individual consistency test, 5 out of
improvement; compulsory maintenance based on 6 respondents has inconsistency ratio  10%, in which
regulations (statutory) judgments are trustworthy. And 1 respondent is rejected
b. Outsourcing; Advantages of outsourcing; Types of jobs since it too close for comfort to randomness (Table 2).
and expertise that are outsourced; Increased knowledge of Table 2.
AHP Consistency Ratio
internal resources for critical sectors [10], SME Inconsistency Ratio Status
c. Maintenance Organization; Organizational structure; R-1 0.09 Accepted
Skills and competencies; Training; Motivation and R-2 0.10 Accepted
readiness to change R-3 0.10 Accepted
R-4 0.10 Accepted
d. E-Maintenance; CMMS / EAM / ERP; Maintenance R-5 0.10 Accepted
system data readiness R-6 0.76 Rejected
e. Preventive Maintenance Job Plan; Identify all
equipment to be carried out; maintainable element; Work b. Consolidated Pair Wise Comparison Matrix
instructions; List of spare parts; Standardization of labor Pair wise comparison result of each accepted SME
requirements and duration; Preparation of maintenance need to consolidate into single matrix, in which the
packages calculation is using geometric mean.
f. Shutdown Planning; Job identification during The calculation of geometric mean as below:
shutdown; Identification of material needs; Work order భ
ሺςே௜ୀଵ ‫ݔ‬௜ ሻ =) ξ͹‫ݔ‬ͷ‫ݔ‬ͷ‫ݔ‬ͷ‫ = ͳݔ‬3,87
ಿ
ఱ

g. Work packed planning; Determining the feasibility of

work requests (work request); Preparation of work scope;
Prioritization of work; Preparation of job details (material,
resources, work safety, etc.)
h. Job Forecast and Schedule; Estimated annual,
quarterly, monthly workload; Forecasting resource
readiness; Work scheduling; Allocation and setting
workload per person
i. Communication and Coordination; Establish good
relations and information exchange mechanisms with
third parties; Regular meetings (annual, quarterly,
monthly, weekly); Coordinate workforce readiness and
material availability (dispatch material)
j. Material Management;
Identification of routine maintenance materials and
critical parts; Automatic order determination (ROP /
Each pair wise comparison (consist 12 x 12 pair wise)
than calculated, and the result as figure 11. In addition,
consolidated AHP matrix also needs to be checked the
consistency ratio. The final inconsistency ratio is 6%,
below allowable limit 0.1, the AHP process is
trustworthy.
c. Importance Level of PA
The consolidate AHP Matrix is processed to calculate
the importance level of each maintenance planning
process area (Table 3). The result:
a. Maintenance method 5,40%
b. Outsourcing 3,60%
c. Maintenance organization 5,90%
d. E-Maintenance 10,40%
e. Preventive maintenance job plan 6,40%

1706
 Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE IEEM

f. Shutdown planning 14,20% maintenance could be analyzed as below:

g. Work pack planning 12,40% a. Strategic plan is a long-term objective, which developed
h. Job forecast and schedule 11,40% by senior management level. Although periodically
i. Communication and coordination 7,50% reviewed its alignment with business opportunity and
j. Material management 10,50% challenge, in the overall strategic plan is not as dynamic
k. Measurement and control 7,30% as a tactical plan.
l. Maintenance budget 4,90% b. Maintenance strategic plan which derived into
maintenance policy and procedures is relatively rigid.
Table 3. The maintenance team only need to implement and
Consolidated AHP Matrix
obey the company policy.
Process Area a b c D E f g h I j k l c. Maintenance method which part of strategic aspect,
Maintenance consist of decision of adoption technology and method
3,87 1,73 0,71 0,51 0,44 0,41 0,67 0,45 0,39 0,34 0,51
Method
Contracting Out 0,76 0,23 0,33 0,22 0,16 0,29 0,56 1,00 0,59 1,14 selection in maintenance, will eventually impact to
Maintenance
0,64 1,32 0,45 0,67 0,91 0,76 0,39 0,88 1,32
financial and budget. In Indonesia upstream oil & gas
organization
E-Maintenance 3,87 0,33 0,41 0,76 1,97 1,14 1,73 1,88
industry, all maintenance cost normally are cost
PM Standard recovery as per Production Sharing Contract (PSC)
0,26 0,81 0,86 1,00 0,41 0,88 1,25
Instruction agreement. So, in certain level, cost consequence of
Shutdown
Planning
1,00 1,50 1,50 1,14 1,32 2,01 maintenance technology and method selection is not
Work Pack
1,73 1,32 0,88 1,16 2,01
sensitive issue. Latest technologies suitable to be
Planning applied as long as having good cost and benefit
Job Forecast &
Schedule
2,43 1,97 2,29 3,41 justification.
Communication
0,77 1,73 1,50 d. The major challenge in maintenance activity in oil and
& Coordination
Material
gas industry is to ensure that all the equipment are
1,84 2,58 reliable, in which reflecting in its availability and a
Management
Measurement & reliability. To fulfill this objective, tactical aspect
1,73
control
Maintenance elements contribute higher compared with strategic
Budget plan.

IV. DISCUSSION C. Maintenance Planning Maturity Level (A Case Study)

A. Strategic & Tactical Aspect
Refer to Al-Turki [5] in which maintenance planning
could be divided into strategic planning and tactical
planning, then process area as result of Delphi process
could be categorized. The strategic planning shall
integrate between company strategy with maintenance
function, in which encompass a) maintenance method, b)
outsourcing, c) maintenance organization and d)
maintenance budget. The responsible of the strategic
planning in maintenance are senior management level.
While tactical plan, in which is a systematic
determination and scheduling of the immediate or short-
term activities required in achieving the objectives of
strategic planning, are consist of a) e-maintenance, b)
preventive maintenance job plan, c) shutdown planning,
d) work pack planning, e) job forecast and schedule, f)
communication and coordination, g) material
management, and h) measurement and control.
B. Importance Level of KPA
In maintenance, both strategic and tactical plan is
important. However, in this research where the
respondents are maintenance practitioner in Indonesia oil
and gas industry with significant experience shows that
tactical plan elements are considered have higher
importance level compare to tactical plan, in which all
elements of strategic plan are at the lowest importance
level in AHP process.
Low importance level of the strategic plan in
On the case study to conduct maturity level (ML)
measurement at Oil & Gas company in Indonesia, it was
initially found that each process area (element) of
maintenance planning are higher than ML-3, the process
is planned; semi-quantitative analyses are done
periodically to define good practices or management
procedures; process management depends on some
specific constraints for the organizational responsibility or
the technical systems.
According to Macchi & Fumagalli [14], at ML-3, the
process has been properly flowed, and there was no
specific obstacle in managing maintenance planning,
however room for improvement still available.
The higher maturity level is reached on the area of
tactical instead of strategic plan (fig. 1.), This condition
could be explained as below:
• Tactical planning dimension is relatively easier to
maintain since the responsible person of each element
mostly single point of responsibility in the
organization;
• Strategic planning is the domain of senior management,
but its implementation involves many parties, in which
relatively difficult to manage it.
V. CONCLUSION
Maintenance planning capability maturity gives
guidelines to the organization to achieve excellence
process in maintenance planning. There are 12 KPA in

1707
 Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE IEEM

maintenance planning as a result of Deplhi process. The
AHP method calculates the importance level of each
maintenance planning process area.
Although the research result is applicable for oil and
gas industry further research is necessary for its
applicability in other industry.
REFERENCES
[17] 14Campbell, John. D., & Jardine, A. K. 2001. Asset
Maintenance Excellence: Optimizing Equipment Life-Cycle
Decisions. CRC Press.
[18] Oliviera, M.A., Lopes,I. & Figueriredo, D. L.. 2012.
Maintenance Management Proposal Based on Organization
Maturity Level. International Journal of Research in Social
Sciences. Aug 2013, vol 2 no.4 pp. 82-90.
[19] Palmer, .D. 2006. Maintenace Planning and Schedulling
Handbook. 2nd edition. McGrawHill.

[1] British Standard. 1984. BS 3811:1984 Glossary of

maintenance management terms in Terotechnology. British
Standards Institution.
[2] Visser, J. K. 1998. Modelling maintenance performance: a
practical approach. Proceedings of the IMA Conference,
Edinburg. pp. 1-13.
[3] Muchiri, P., & Pintelon, L. 2010. Development of
maintenance function performance measurement framework
and indicator. International Journal of
ProductionEconomics 131, 2011, pp. 295-302.
[4] Al-Turki, U., Ayar, T., Yilbas, B. S., & Sahin, A. Z. 2014.
Integrated Maintenance Planning in Manufacturing System.
Springer International Publishing
[5] Al-Turki, U. 2011. A framework for strategic planning in
maintenance. Journal of Quality in Maintenance
Engineering, pp. 150-162.
[6] Hauge, Bonnie. S., & Mercier, B. A. 2003. Reliability
Centered Maintenance Maturity Level Roadmap.
Proceeding Annual Reliability & Maintainability
Symposium, pp. 226-231.
[7] Cholasuke, C. 2004. The status of maintenance management
in UK manufacturing organisations: results from a pilot
survey. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering
Volume 10 · Number 1 · 2004 · pp. 5-15
[8] Chemweno , P., Pintelon, L., & Van Horenbeek, A. 2013.
Asset maintenance maturity model as a structured guide to
maintenance process maturity. International Journal of
Strategic Engineering Asset Management 2015 Vol.2, No.2
pp.119-135
[9] Nakajima, S. 1988. Introduction to TPM:Total Productive
Maintenance. Cambridge,MA: Productivity Press.
[10] Tsang, A. H. 2002. Strategic dimension of maintenance
management. Journal of Quality in Maintenance
Engineering, pp. 7-39.
[11] Don Nyman, Joel Levitt. 1997. Maintenance Planning,
Scheduling & Coordination. Industrial Press, Inc, New
York.
[12] Paulk M.C., Curtis B., Chrissis M.B. and Weber, C.V.
(1993) Capability Maturity Model SM for Software, Version
1.1, Technical Report CMU/SEI-93-TR-024 ESC-TR-93-
177, February 1993
[13] Fraser, P., Moultrie, J. & Gregory, M. (2002). The Use of
Maturity Models/Grids as a Tool in Assessing Product
Development Capability. Proceedings IEEE Int.
Engineering Management Conference. Vol. 1, pp. 244-249.
[14] Macchi, M., & Fumagalli, L. 2013. A maintenance maturity
assessment method for the manufacturing industry. Journal
of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, pp. 295-315.
[15] Hanke, J. E. 2005. Business Forecasting , 8th ed. New
Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
[16] Saaty, T.L., 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process
Planning, Piority Setting, Resource Allocation. New York:
McGraw-Hill.

1708