Int. J.

Production Economics 84 (2003) 85–100

Selecting the most efficient maintenance approach using

fuzzy multiple criteria decision making
Basim Al-Najjara,*, Imad Alsyoufb
a
. o. University, Vaxjo SE-35 195, Sweden
School for Industrial Engineering, Vaxj
b
Department of Industrial Engineering, LTH, Lund University, Lund, Sweden

Received 22 May 2001; accepted 10 September 2002

Abstract

We assess the most popular maintenance approaches, i.e. strategies, policies, or philosophies, using a fuzzy multiple
criteria decision making (MCDM) evaluation methodology. We illustrate with two examples how the suggested
evaluation methodology identifies the most informative approach. Using the fuzzy MCDM, it would be possible to
select in advance, the most informative (efficient) maintenance approach. Consequently, this leads to less planned
replacements, and failures would be reduced to approximately zero and higher utilization of component life can be
achieved. Thus, the maintenance department could contribute more to the business objectives throughout participating
effectively in adding value to the production activities.
r 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Fuzzy logic; Maintenance approaches; Multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM)

1. Introduction typically, figures such as 15–40% of production

The importance of maintenance function has
increased due to its role in keeping and improving
the availability, product quality, safety require-
ments, and plant cost-effectiveness levels. Main-
tenance costs constitute an important part of the
operating budget of manufacturing firms. Mckone
and Wiess (1998) reported that the amount of
money Du Pont spent, in 1991, company-wide on
maintenance was roughly equal to its net income.
Al-Najjar (1997) showed that maintenance ex-
penses vary depending on the type of industry,
*Corresponding author. Tel.: +46-470-708-422; fax: +46-
470-76-85-40.
E-mail address: basim.al-najjar@ips.vxu.se (B. Al-Najjar).
costs may be encountered. The consequences of an
inefficient maintenance policy go far beyond the
direct costs of maintenance.
The maintenance concept has passed through
several major developments. In this paper, we
assess the most popular maintenance approaches,
i.e. strategies, policies, methodology or philoso-
phy, using a methodology based on fuzzy logic
theory, i.e. fuzzy multiple criteria decision-making
(MCDM). Section 2 reviews some of the most
popular maintenance approaches. Section 3 de-
monstrates the bases of comparison of mainte-
nance approaches. Section 4 goes through basic
concepts of fuzzy logic and MCDM. Section 5
illustrates the evaluation methodology suggested
for assessing and selecting the most efficient

0925-5273/03/$ - see front matter r 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 9 2 5 - 5 2 7 3 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 3 8 0 - 8
86 B. Al-Najjar, I. Alsyouf / Int. J. Production Economics 84 (2003) 85–100
(informative) maintenance approach by applying
it on typical data from two different cases, and
finally conclusions.
2. Maintenance approaches
In the following we present the most popular
maintenance approaches, i.e. strategies, policies,
methodology or philosophy. Maintenance strategy
involves the identification, researching and execu-
tion of many repairs, replace and/or inspect
decisions, see Al-Najjar (1997) and Kelly (1997).
Failure based maintenance (FBM) is only
performed when a failure or breakdown occurs,
no action is taken to detect the onset of-, or to
prevent-, failure. The maintenance related costs
are usually high, but it may be considered cost-
effective in certain cases, see Pintelon and Gelders
(1992), Al-Najjar (1997) and Kelly (1997). The
main objectives of using preventive maintenance
(PM) are to reduce the number of failures and
their economic consequences by performing main-
tenance actions at a predetermined point of times
(age-based or calendar time), regardless of the
condition of the equipment/component. The time
to action is usually optimized in order to minimize
maintenance costs. PM has some difficulties such
as the need of decision support systems, insuffi-
cient historical data, and inaccuracy in assessing
the time to action especially when the standard
deviation is large, see Williams et al. (1994), Mann
et al. (1995), Dekker (1996), and Al-Najjar (1997).
Condition-based maintenance (CBM) strategy
and in particular vibration-based maintenance
(VBM) policy, as one of the policies included by
CBM, is based on deterministic and probabilistic
models. Data about failure behavior can be
obtained via suitable condition monitoring (CM)
parameters, those, which give information about
the actual state of the systems, see Gits (1992), and
Dekker (1996). Al-Najjar (1997) showed that
efficient VBM enables maintenance decisions to
be made based on past data, data from surround-
ings and current state of the equipment thus
avoiding unnecessary replacements and enables
the machine (in some cases) to run until just before
failure. Also, it provides useful information for
diagnoses and prognoses about the root cause(s)
and failure mechanisms of the damage, see
Al-Najjar (1996, 1997), and Tsang (1995).
VBM policy involves periodic (VBMp) and
continuos (VBMc) collection and interpretation
of data. Vibration technique is always preferred in
CM applied on rotating and reciprocating ma-
chines, but limitations and deficiency in data
coverage and quality reduce its effectiveness and
accuracy, see Al-Najjar (1996, 1997), and Yang
et al. (1999).
Moubray (1991) defined reliability centered
maintenance (RCM) as a methodology to deter-
mine what must be done to ensure that the asset
continues fulfilling its intended functions in its
present operating context. Sandtorv and Rausand
(1990) showed that RCM depends on the avail-
ability of failure data, analysis methods and
operating experience to achieve its target. Srik-
rishana et al. (1996) reported that RCM has
implementation difficulties due to the unavailabil-
ity of plant failure data. Al-Najjar (1997) indicated
that RCM does not make full provision for the use
of CM techniques, so that the development of
damage cannot be followed until just before
failure. However, Rausand (1998) reported that
it is possible to systematically, document and
analyze the basis of the initial decisions, hence, one
can better utilize operating experience to adjust the
decisions, as operating experience data become
available.
Total productive maintenance (TPM) includes a
company-wide approach to plant, equipment or
asset care that involves the active participation of
more than just the maintenance department who
are working on maintenance and improving the
overall equipment effectiveness (OEE), see Bamber
et al. (1999) and Mckone et al. (1999). Sherwin
(2000) reported that TPM does not advocate a
specific strategy to allow PM to be planned, which
may be neglected if the factory gets too busy.
Within TPM, formulation of an asset care
program seems to be troublesome. This is due to
the fact that all the available descriptions of TPM
demonstrate that it is a non-prescriptive process,
see Geraghty (1996).
Total Quality Maintenance (TQMain) is based
on making intensive use of the real-time data
 B. Al-Najjar, I. Alsyouf / Int. J. Production Economics 84 (2003) 85–100
acquisition and analysis to detect causes behind
deviation in product quality and changes in
machine condition to control damage development
at an early stage and assure quality. It suggests the
integration of the separate relevant databases of
the manufacturing system into a common data-
base and uses a reconstructed version of OEE,
which is called overall process effectiveness (OPE),
see Al-Najjar (1996, 1997, 1999). Sherwin (2000)
pointed out that its managerial model for main-
tenance specifically focuses on inspection and
monitoring policies.
3. Criteria to compare maintenance approaches
The accuracy of the timing of maintenance
action highly affects the useful life length of the
maintained equipment/component, number of
failures, number of planned replacements, mean
time to repair, maintenance direct costs and
consequently production costs. The more accurate
the maintenance action timing, the higher the
utilization of the component life. To assess the
efficiency of a maintenance policy two measures
(effectiveness and accuracy) are suggested in Al-
Najjar (1997).
Achieving more efficient maintenance depends
on the capability of the implemented maintenance
policy to provide and employ effectively the
relevant information about the factors affecting
the life of the component/equipment in question.
Providing more relevant information about com-
ponent condition increases maintenance ability
(effectiveness) to avoid failures and makes use as
much as possible of the equipment/component
effective life due to performing replacements
‘‘just’’ before failure, i.e. improves policy’s accu-
racy.
3.1. Failure causes and sources of information
The condition and life length of significant
components of a maintained system depend on
three sets of factors:
1. Operating and environmental conditions.
87
2. Quality of surveillance and maintenance activ-
ities.
3. The use time.
The operating conditions represent loading
modes, e.g. continuous or intermittent, partial or
full load, speed history and stress level such as
operating temperature and pressure, see Al-Najjar
(1996). While, environmental conditions represent
parameters such as ambient temperature, humid-
ity, level of radiation, lubricant temperature and
existing of dirt in the surrounding. Likewise,
quality of surveillance and maintenance activities
includes factors such as, see Al-Najjar (1997,
2000a, b), Martorell et al. (1999), Wang and
Hayfield (1999), and Yang et al. (1999):
1. Lubricant quality. Bad lubricant quality causes
life reduction and failure.
2. Cleaning. Existence of dirt affects failure con-
ditions and product quality.
3. Mechanical looseness. It may cause excessive
vibration and quality problems.
4. Operating and maintenance staff skill, which
usually influence the quality of the use of
machinery and repair and replacement quality,
e.g. incorrect installation or improper compo-
nent.
5. Component quality, which is affected by design
modifications, degradation in shipping, storage,
or handling, etc.
6. Data quality. For example, when using CM
data accuracy is affected by the probe sensitiv-
ity and the mathematical models used in signal
processing.
Each maintenance approach uses different
sources of data in its decision making process
such as, see Al-Najjar (1997, 2000b), Moubray
(1991), Andersson and Rasmussen (1999), Mar-
torell et al. (1999), and Wang and Hayfield (1999):
1. Failure data obtained from historical records,
data bank, etc.
2. Operational experience, i.e. data and knowledge
gained from working context.
88 B. Al-Najjar, I. Alsyouf / Int. J. Production Economics 84 (2003) 85–100
3. Analysis methods, e.g. Ishikawa and Pareto
diagrams, FMECA and/or fault tree analysis
(FTA).
4. CM Information about the equipment/compo-
nent during the normal operating interval, and
early stages of damage initiation and develop-
ment, until just before failure.
5. CM diagnostic and prognostic information
concerning equipment/component condition,
operational conditions, manufacturing meth-
ods, material, operator training, surroundings,
etc.
6. Information about the quality controls pro-
gram, which provides data about early indica-
tions of quality deviation, environmental effects
of manufacturing system, etc.
4. Fuzzy logic and multiple criteria decision making
(MCDM)
In the following we discuss the concept of fuzzy
logic and MCDM.
4.1. Fuzzy logic
Fuzzy logic is gaining more and more popularity
due to factors such as conceptually easy to
understand, flexibility, tolerant of imprecise data,
being based on natural language, etc. Fuzzy logic
expresses vague and subjective relationships math-
ematically. It is a convenient way to map an input
space to an output space using a fuzzy set. A fuzzy
set is a set without a crisp (sharp) clearly defined
boundary. Carrasco et al. (2002) illustrated that
fuzzy logic extends classical Boolean logic to real
numbers. In Boolean algebra, 1 represents truth
and 0 is falsity. This is also the case in fuzzy logic;
but, in addition, all the fractions between 0 and 1
are employed to indicate partial truth, i.e. a partial
degree of membership.
A membership function is a curve that defines
how each point in the input space is mapped to a
membership value (partial truth) between 0 and 1.
The membership function itself can be an arbitrary
curve whose shape could be defined based on
simplicity, convenience, speed and efficiency.
There are various basic types of membership
functions such as piecewise linear functions,
Gaussian distribution function, sigmoid curve
and quadratic and cubic polynomial curves.
Fuzzy logic is not a substitute for statistics,
indeed, it is used when statistical reasoning is
inappropriate. Statistic is used to express the
extent of knowledge about a value. It relies on
tools such as variance, standard deviation and
confidence intervals. However, fuzzy logic is used
to express the absence of a sharp boundary
between sets of information, see Carrasco et al.
(2002).
For example, the fuzzy set A; on the universe X ;
is the set defined by membership function mA
representing a mapping mA : X -f0; 1g: The value
of mA ðxÞ for the fuzzy set A is called the member-
ship value of xAX : It represents the degree of
certainty that x is belonging to the fuzzy set A: If
mA ðxÞ ¼ 1; the element x completely (with 100% of
certainty) belongs to the fuzzy set A: If mA ðxÞ ¼ 0;
the element x does not belong to A at all. Values
between 0 and 1 mean intermediate values of
certainty. An important part of fuzzy logic is
known as L2R fuzzy numbers (intervals) that are
defined and illustrated by among others, Tanaka
(1996) and Zimmermann (1996). A fuzzy number
(interval) M * is of LR-type if there exist reference
functions L (for left), R (for right), and the scalars
(real numbers) a > 0; b > 0; and interval ½mL ; mR :
Where the constant a and b are called the left and
right spreads, respectively, mL and mR are the
interval limits of M. * When mL ¼ mR the fuzzy set
M* is a triangular fuzzy number, otherwise it is
trapezoidal. Symbolically, M * is denoted by
ðmL ; mR ; a; bÞLR :
8
mL  x
>
> L ; xrmL
>
< a
mM* ðxÞ ¼ 1 ; mL pxpmR :
>
>
x  m 
>
:R R
; xXmR
b
ð1Þ
Typical function for L and R; for example, are
LðcÞ ¼ RðcÞ=maximum (0,1jcj), where the real
number cA[0 1], and it is calculated either by the
variables (mL ; x; a) in the case of LðcÞ; or by the
variables (x; mR ; b) in the case of RðcÞ as illustrated
in Eq. (1).
 B. Al-Najjar, I. Alsyouf / Int. J. Production Economics 84 (2003) 85–100
Example 1. A triangular fuzzy number can be
illustrated; using LðcÞ ¼ RðcÞ=max. ð0; 1  jcjÞ;
M * ¼ ðmL ; mR ; a; bÞLR ¼ ð10; 10; 8; 7ÞLR ; if x ¼ 4;
then c ¼ ð10  4Þ=8 ¼ 0:75; thus mM* (4)=0.25, as
shown in Fig. 1.
Example 2. A trapezoidal fuzzy number can be
illustrated; using LðcÞ ¼ RðcÞ ¼ max:ð0; 1  jcjÞ;
M * ¼ ðmL ; mR ; a; bÞLR ¼ ð10; 20; 8; 7ÞLR ; if x ¼ 15;
then mM* (15)=1, as shown in Fig. 2.
4.2. Fuzzy inference systems
Fuzzy inference is the process of formulating the
mapping from given input(s) to an output using
fuzzy logic, the mapping then provides a basis
from which a decision can be made. It refers to the
computational procedures used for evaluating
fuzzy linguistic descriptions using concepts such
as membership functions, fuzzy logic operators,
and if-then rules, see Tsoukalas and Uhrig (1997).
Because rule-based reasoning is grounded in
qualitative knowledge representation, there is a
need to quantify it. Since fuzzy logic allows us to
mesh a quantitative approach with qualitative
representation, it is used to quantify certain
qualifiers such as; approximately, often, rarely,
several, few and very, see Carrasco et al. (2002).
The most common approaches to fuzzy reasoning
are Mamdani and Sugeno approaches. Setnes et al.
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
L(c)
Membership Value
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 2 4 6
Fig. 1. Triangular L2R Fuzzy number.
89
(1998) showed that using the Sugeno approach it
would be difficult to give a linguistic interpretation
of the information that is described in the rule
base. While, Mamdani approach is typically used
in modelling human expert knowledge, as they
cited.
4.3. Multiple criteria decision making (MCDM)
MCDM consists of a finite set of alternatives
among which a decision-maker has to select or
rank; a finite set of criteria weighted according to
their importance. In addition a decision matrix
consisting of the rating of each alternative with
respect to each criterion using a suitable measure.
The evaluation ratings are, then, aggregated taking
into account the weights of the criteria, to get a
global evaluation for each alternative and a total
ranking of the alternatives, see Roubens (1996)
and Zanakis et al. (1998). There are several
methods used for decision making such as simple
additive weighting (SAW), multiplicative exponen-
tial weighting (MEW), technique for order pre-
ference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS),
the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), etc., see
Triantaphyllou and Lin (1996), and Zanakis et al.
(1998). Also, many useful fuzzy MCDM methods
have been developed, see Liang (1999). Using a
fuzzy MCDM, assessing the importance of criteria
Triangular L-R Fuzzy Number
R(c)
a=8 b=7
8 10 12 14 16 18 20
X (Input space)
90 B. Al-Najjar, I. Alsyouf / Int. J. Production Economics 84 (2003) 85–100

Trapezoidal L-R Fuzzy Number

1

0.9

0.8

0.7
Membership Value

0.6 L(c) R(c)

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2 a=8 b=7

0.1

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
X (Input space)

Fig. 2. Trapezoidal L2R Fuzzy number.

and the ratings of the alternatives with respect to Table 1

each criterion can be estimated according to a Fuzzy decision matrix
fuzzy linguistic variable. Some of the used fuzzy Failure cause (criterion) C1
Cj
Cn
linguistic models are presented in Chin and Klein Maintenance approach (alternative) w* 1
w* 2
w* n
(1997). A1 R* 11
R* 1j
R* 1n

Ai R* i1
R* ij
R* in
5. Evaluation methodology

Am R* m1
R* mj
R* mn

In this study, we assessed and identified set of

maintenance approaches using a fuzzy MCDM.
The objective is to rank the maintenance ap-
proaches by evaluating their ability to provide
information about the changes in the behavior of
failure causes, which are used as criteria, as
illustrated in Table 1.
The decision problem is composed of a matrix
of m maintenance approaches rated on a set of n
failure causes (criteria) that are applicable to the
case in question. w* ¼ fwj ; for j ¼ 1; 2; y; ng is
a set of fuzzy numbers (weights) on the unit
interval [0 1] denoting the importance of consider-
ing the jth failure cause (criterion) Cj : Let R* ¼
fRij ; for ; i ¼ 1; 2; y; m; j ¼ 1; 2y; ng be a set of
fuzzy number, also, on the unit interval {0 1},
denoting the rating (capability) of the ith main-
tenance approach on detecting changes in the jth
criterion using a suitable measure. The suggested
methodology (as illustrated in Fig. 3) consists of
five main phases:
1. Assessment of the importance of considering
the failure causes (criteria) using a fuzzy
*
linguistic variable w:
2. Assessment of the capability of the maintenance
approaches, using a Fuzzy Inference System
(FIS) that results in an assessment of the fuzzy
*
linguistic variable R:
3. Defuzzifying of the fuzzy linguistic variables w*
*
and R:
4. Rank ordering the approaches using the SAW.
5. Selecting the most informative (efficient) main-
tenance approach.
 B. Al-Najjar, I. Alsyouf / Int. J. Production Economics 84 (2003) 85–100 91

Technical analysis of manufacturing processes, machines and components. Past data

Identification of the failure causes Identification of the

(Criteria) influencing equipment/ applicable maintenance
component condition and life length approaches

(1) Assessment of the weight (importance) of (2) Assessment of the capability of the
considering the failure causes (criteria) using a maintenance approaches, using a Fuzzy
fuzzy linguistic variable w~ Inference System (FIS) that results in an
~
assessment of the fuzzy linguistic variable R

~
~ and R
(3) Defuzzifying of the fuzzy linguistic variables w

(4) Rank ordering the approaches using the simple additive weighting (SAW)

(5) Selecting the most informative (efficient) maintenance approach

Fig. 3. Conceptual model of the fuzzy MCDM evaluation methodology.

At first, the failure causes (criteria) should be
identified and a weight for each criterion has to be
assigned, which is not impossible when using a
machine’s history, personnel experience and tech-
nical analysis. Using MATLAB Fuzzy Logic
Toolbox, we developed a linguistic model for the
*
fuzzy variable w=‘‘WEIGHT’’ to assess the
importance of considering each failure cause
(criterion), using seven possible linguistic ratings,
see Fig. 4. The assessment of w* can be performed
linguistically based on previous experience and
knowledge of the effect of the failure causes
(criteria) on the condition and the life length of
the component/equipment in question.
Secondly, the various applicable maintenance
approaches should be identified and assessed
according to their capability of providing informa-
tion about the changes of each criterion, which can
be done based on the available knowledge and
experience concerning these approaches. There-
fore, we developed (using MATLAB Fuzzy Logic
Toolbox) a FIS to assess the capability of each
maintenance approach to provide the required
information about changes in the failure causes. It
consists of three-input, one-output, and 28-rule,
see Fig. 5.
The complexity of FIS, measured in the number
of variables and rules, was designed so that it is
neither too small nor too large, according to
Occam’s Razor principle, see Bishop (1995). After
several experiments we found that the most
appropriate, i.e. simple and robust model, could
be based on the following three inputs:
(1) Relevant PAST-DATA. It represents the
degree of usage of relevant historical data
and analysis tools. For example, in FBM no
data is available, in PM only failure data
could be analyzed, while in RCM and RPM
(when using age-based policy) in addition to
the historical data previous operating and
technical experience could be utilized.
(2) Relevant CURRENT-DATA: it is the degree
of acquiring relevant information about the
92 B. Al-Najjar, I. Alsyouf / Int. J. Production Economics 84 (2003) 85–100

Very Low Low More or Less Low Medium More or Less High High Very High
1

0.8
Membership Value

0.6

0.4

0.2

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

WEIGHT

*
Fig. 4. The linguistic model for fuzzy variable w=‘‘WEIGHT’’.

Fig. 5. The fuzzy inference system for assessment of the capability of the maintenance approaches.

component or equipment status. For example; While, in TQMain approach further informa-
in PM real time measurement of the operating tion describing the surrounding are included
time or age of the component is utilized. In in addition to those being collected when
CBM real time measurements of the CM using CBM.
parameters are utilized in addition to the (3) ADEQUACY: the degree of capturing rele-
operating time (or age of the component). vant, adequate and enough information about
 B. Al-Najjar, I. Alsyouf / Int. J. Production Economics 84 (2003) 85–100
the damage initiation, development and fail-
ure mode, i.e. deterioration process.
Using a scale from 0 to 10, the user could assess
these variables. Then, these inputs are fuzzified
using appropriate membership functions. We used
a two piece-wise linear types of R2L fuzzy
numbers, i.e. membership functions, due to its
simplicity, popularity and wide-use, see Chin and
Klein (1997). Next, the fuzzy operators such as
AND or OR are applied across the rules that are
built based on the knowledge and experience
about the ability of each maintenance approach,
see Fig. 6.
The Mamdani’s fuzzy inference method, which
is considered the most commonly used fuzzy
methodology, was used in the fuzzy-rule-based
inference engine since it is typically used in
modeling human expert knowledge, see Setnes
et al. (1998). After testing all the rules in the FIS,
the inputs are summed up according to the
Fig. 6. An example of the rules used in the FIS.
93
Mamdani method. The output of the process is
*
the fuzzy variable R=‘‘RATE’’. It represents the
capability of each maintenance approach to
provide the required information about changes
in the failure causes, see Fig. 7.
The third step is to defuzzify the linguistic fuzzy
*
variables, i.e. w=‘‘WEIGHT’’ *
and R=‘‘RATE’’,
into numeric values. There are many defuzzifica-
tion methods such as centroid, bisector, middle of
the max, etc. The criteria which may be used in
determining the suitable method are disambiguity
(result in unique value), plausibility (lie approxi-
mately in the middle of the area), and computa-
tional simplicity, see Ross (1995). We selected the
centroid method, which returns the center of area
under the curve and satisfies the selection criteria.
This is followed (in the fourth step) by rank
ordering of the maintenance approaches. We
selected the SAW due to its simplicity, popularity
to practitioners and the good performance results
which it achieves compared to other methods, see
94 B. Al-Najjar, I. Alsyouf / Int. J. Production Economics 84 (2003) 85–100
Very Weak Weak
1
0.8
Membership Value
0.6
0.4
0.2
0 0.1 0.2
Fig. 7. The linguistic model for the fuzzy variable R=‘‘RATE’’.
Zanakis et al. (1998). The SAW calculates for each
maintenance approach the score Si where
X was illustrated in Section 5. The output of the
Si ¼ Wj Rij :
j
Then the scores Si are normalized by calculating
the index Oi ¼ Si =SSi ; which leads to a normal-
ized ranking of the maintenance approaches.
Finally, we select the one with maximum Oi as
the best informative maintenance approach, which
is the efficient policy given that this information is
used effectively. The suggested evaluation metho-
dology is explained by the following two different
examples.
5.1. Example A
In process or chemical industries such as paper
mills, we can identify the failure causes (criteria) of
rolling element bearings, shown in Table 2.
The weight w* is estimated using the following
possible ratings: {very low (VL), low (L), more or
less low (MLL), medium (M), more or less high
(MLH), high (H), and very high (VH)}. If the
criterion is not applicable to the case at hand, we
allocate a crisp value of zero donated as none.
Then, we assess the capability of each maintenance
More or Less Weak Fair More or Less Strong Strong Very Strong
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
RATE
*
approach to provide information about the
changes in the failure causes using the FIS that
FIS is an assessment of the fuzzy variable
*
R=‘‘RATE’’. This could be one of the following
ratings: {very weak (VW), weak (W), more or less
weak (MLW), fair (F), more or less strong (MLS),
strong (S), very strong (VS)}, and a crisp value of
zero donated as none.
The assessment of w* and R* are done based on
author Al-Najjar’s long experience within paper
mills in Sweden. The information about the actual
operating conditions of the component differ
according to the maintenance approach imple-
mented.
Using FBM, there exists no information about
the criteria affecting the component condition,
therefore, the FIS output is zero value, i.e. none,
see Fig. 8.
While, PM statistical models use failure data
from several sources and various qualities to
determine the action time. Data quality problem
may lead to either excessive and unnecessarily
maintenance, or to unexpected failures. For
example, the implemented PM model may be
developed and based on data, which is not relevant
to the context in which the component is working,
 B. Al-Najjar, I. Alsyouf / Int. J. Production Economics 84 (2003) 85–100
Table 2
Linguistic assessment of the weight of the failure causes (criteria)
Failure causes (criteria)
Mode of operation (continuous C1
or intermittent)
Load (high or low) C2
Speed (high or low) C3
Operating temperature C4
Humidity C5
Radiation C6
Ambient temperature C7
Dirt in the surrounding C8
Lubricant quality (specifications) C9
Lubricant temperature C10
Service quality, e.g. mechanical C11
looseness
Consistency of component C12
quality
Availability of product quality C13
data
therefore, PM evaluation may be considered as
FBM. While, if the PM model is developed and
based on, for example, proportional hazard
models (PHM), then operating conditions may
be considered, see Al-Najjar (1999). Thus, the
more robust statistical model can be developed,
the more information about the changes is
acquired. Furthermore, if the spreading in the
time to failure was very small, using such a PM
model the time to action can be evaluated reliably.
In this example, PMs model is considered devel-
oped from data of large spreading.
When using RCM to select the suitable main-
tenance, let the selected maintenance policy be age-
based, which is one of the policies included by PM
strategy. Then, the required information for
modeling is usually obtained from failure data,
operating experience of the review group, which
may include members from operations, engineer-
ing, maintenance, etc. in addition to using analysis
methods and tools such as FMECA and FTA.
This yields more realistic information than just
applying an equivalent generalized statistical
model that was not developed with respect to the
case in study. But changes in the failure causes, e.g.
95
Weight w* Notes
VH Influences deterioration rate
VH Influences deterioration rate
VH Influences deterioration rate
VH Influences the lubricant viscosity, construction and
deterioration rate
MLH (VH) Related to if the bearing is totally isolated (or not
isolated)
None Not applicable in this example
MLH Influences the lubricant viscosity, construction and
deterioration rate
MLH (VH) Related to if the bearing is totally isolated (or not
isolated)
VH Influence bearing wear rate
VH Influence lubricant technical specifications
VH Rapid deterioration in the outer/inner ring depends
on where is the looseness
L Assuming TQM results in high and stable quality
L (see above) Variation in conformance with technical
specifications, e.g. SPC
operating and environmental conditions, during
equipment running cannot all, in general, be
predicted and taken into consideration. Therefore
the capability of RCM to provide the needed
information during the running time is very
limited.
In the same way, when a statistical model for
planning maintenance actions is developed in the
TPM environment (according to TPM philoso-
phy), several sources of information such as failure
data, operating experience of the work groups who
try to analyze and solve the faced problems are
utilized. Information about the condition of the
current component/equipment can be obtained by
the operator who is acting as a condition monitor,
which is not usually obtained when using RCM
methodology, see Al-Najjar (1996). Since TPM
does not advocate a specific strategy, we believe
that it potentially has the ability to provide good
information about the changes in the failure
causes, based on the actual context in which it is
implemented. When using RCM and TPM, it is
possible to systematically utilize the operating
experience (gained by technical analysis after each
failure) to adjust the decisions as operating data
96 B. Al-Najjar, I. Alsyouf / Int. J. Production Economics 84 (2003) 85–100
Fig. 8. An example of the output of the FIS when assessing the FBM policy.
become available. But, more useful information
about the changes in the failure causes can be
obtained deterministically and probabilistically
when diagnosing and prognosing the data col-
lected from monitoring one or more of CM
parameters due to the variations in the process
conditions, which is natural.
Developing and applying generalized statistical
models without (or with marginal) technical
knowledge and experience about the causes behind
problems in machinery utilizes less information
compared with the case when RCM or TPM is
involved. The more information concerning the
specific problem(s) is involved in developing
statistical models the better verification results.
This is why these three applications of statistical
models may lead to different results.
VBM policy, as a policy of CBM (which may be
either periodic VBMp or continuos VBMc) uses
real time measurements collected from most
informative sources, which are discussed in Section
3.1. In addition, past-data can be utilized in
combination with the component CM data to
estimate statistically the risk of failure using,
e.g. TTT-plots, see Al-Najjar (2000c), and PHM,
see Al-Najjar (1997) and Jardine et al. (1997).
But, when implementing VBMp full information
about damage initiation and development may,
in general, not be captured. While, when using
VBMc more complete information could be
obtained.
Finally, TQMain provides consistent past- and
current- data about the relevant failure causes such
as speed, load, environmental conditions, etc.
Further, it provides information about both the
product characteristics and process element, see
Al-Najjar (1996). Therefore, we can allocate high
values to the input variables of the FIS in the case
of TQMain, see Fig. 9.
The output of the FIS (before defuzzification)
when used to assess the capability of the applicable
maintenance approaches to provide information
about the identified maintenance approaches are
shown in Table 3.
Then, the linguistic fuzzy variables, i.e.
*
w=‘‘WEIGHT’’ *
and R=‘‘RATE’’ are defuzzified
 B. Al-Najjar, I. Alsyouf / Int. J. Production Economics 84 (2003) 85–100 97

Fig. 9. An example of the output of the FIS when assessing the TQMain approach.

Table 3
Linguistic assessment of R* as generated for example A

Failure causes (criteria) FBM PM (age- VBMp VBMc TPM using RCM TQMain
based) policy policy age-based using age- using
based VBM
policy

Mode of operation None VW MLS S VW VW VS

(continuous or intermittent)
C1
Load (high or low) C2 None MLW MLS S MLS F VS
Speed (high or low) C3 None MLW MLS S MLS F VS
Operating temperature C4 None MLW MLS S MLS F VS
Humidity C5 None W MLS S MLS F VS
Radiation C6 None MLW MLS S MLS F VS
Ambient temperature C7 None W MLW S VS F VS
Dirt in the surrounding C8 None W MLS S VS W VS
Lubricant quality None W F MLS MLS W VS
(specifications) C9
Lubricant temperature C10 None W S VS MLS W VS
Service quality, e.g. None W MLS S W W VS
mechanical looseness C11
Consistency of component None VW W MLS W W VS
quality C12
Availability of product None VW W MLS None None VS
quality data C13
98 B. Al-Najjar, I. Alsyouf / Int. J. Production Economics 84 (2003) 85–100

into numeric values. This is followed by rank approach as is shown in the calculation sheet
ordering of the maintenance approaches using the Table 4.
SAW. Consequently, we got that TQMain, in this Noting that maintenance efficiency increases with
example, is the best informative maintenance the availability of more information providing that

Table 4
Calculation sheet of the MCDM matrix, example A

Factor Factor Maintenance approach (alternative)

criteria weight
FBM PM (age- VBMp VBMc TPM using RCM TQMain
based) policy policy age-based using age- using VBM
based policy

C1 0.925 0.000 0.075 0.650 0.800 0.075 0.075 0.925

C2 0.925 0.000 0.350 0.650 0.800 0.650 0.500 0.925
C3 0.925 0.000 0.350 0.650 0.800 0.650 0.500 0.925
C4 0.925 0.000 0.350 0.650 0.800 0.650 0.500 0.925
C5 0.650 0.000 0.200 0.650 0.800 0.650 0.500 0.925
C6 0.000 0.000 0.350 0.650 0.800 0.650 0.500 0.925
C7 0.650 0.000 0.200 0.350 0.800 0.925 0.500 0.925
C8 0.650 0.000 0.200 0.650 0.800 0.925 0.200 0.925
C9 0.925 0.000 0.200 0.500 0.650 0.650 0.200 0.925
C10 0.925 0.000 0.200 0.800 0.925 0.650 0.200 0.925
C11 0.925 0.000 0.200 0.650 0.800 0.200 0.200 0.925
C12 0.200 0.000 0.075 0.200 0.650 0.200 0.200 0.925
C13 0.200 0.000 0.075 0.200 0.650 0.000 0.000 0.925

Si 0.000 2.016 5.360 6.976 4.925 2.831 8.160

Oi 0.000 0.067 0.177 0.230 0.163 0.094 0.270

Table 5
Calculation sheet of the MCDM matrix, example B

Factor Factor Maintenance approach (alternative)

criteria weight
FBM PM (age- VBMp VBMc TPM using RCM TQMain
based) policy policy age-based using age- using VBM
based policy

C1 0.925 0.000 0.650 0.650 0.800 0.075 0.075 0.925

C2 0.925 0.000 0.925 0.650 0.800 0.650 0.500 0.925
C3 0.925 0.000 0.925 0.650 0.800 0.650 0.500 0.925
C4 0.925 0.000 0.925 0.650 0.800 0.650 0.500 0.925
C5 0.650 0.000 0.925 0.650 0.800 0.650 0.500 0.925
C6 0.000 0.000 0.925 0.650 0.800 0.650 0.500 0.925
C7 0.650 0.000 0.925 0.350 0.800 0.925 0.500 0.925
C8 0.650 0.000 0.925 0.650 0.800 0.925 0.200 0.925
C9 0.925 0.000 0.925 0.500 0.650 0.650 0.200 0.925
C10 0.925 0.000 0.925 0.800 0.925 0.650 0.200 0.925
C11 0.925 0.000 0.925 0.650 0.800 0.200 0.200 0.925
C12 0.200 0.000 0.925 0.200 0.650 0.200 0.200 0.925
C13 0.200 0.000 0.925 0.200 0.650 0.000 0.000 0.925

Si 0.000 7.908 5.360 6.976 4.925 2.831 8.160

Oi 0.000 0.219 0.148 0.193 0.136 0.078 0.226
 B. Al-Najjar, I. Alsyouf / Int. J. Production Economics 84 (2003) 85–100
this information is used effectively to improve
maintenance efficiency. The most efficient main-
tenance approach should, however, be the most
cost effective.
5.2. Example B
In this case, we considered a pump station. We
assume that the statistical PM model was devel-
oped and based on the data obtained from
operating history records. Furthermore, we as-
sume that it was analyzed taking into account
adequate and relevant data, e.g. operating and
environmental conditions and documented jour-
nals, with consultation of the operators and
craftsmen who are familiar with the equipment.
Thus, the spreading in the time to failure is very
small. In this case, the capability of PM to include
information about most of the failure causes is
very strong. Hence, the PM approach could be
considered within the best informative mainte-
nance approaches as shown in the calculation
sheet of the MCDM matrix in Table 5. Noting that
the evaluations of other approaches were kept the
same as in Example A.
On the other hand, when one is dealing with a
component or equipment where the failure is not
predictable or controllable by neither CM techni-
ques nor distribution analysis, and the conse-
quences of the failure are negligible, e.g. small
pump with a stand by. In this case, the weights of
the failure causes can be assessed as none, i.e. zero.
Therefore, according to the suggested evaluation
methodology, all strategies will have the same Si
value, i.e. zero. Hence, we can select the one with
the minimum initial cost that is the FBM approach
FBM, which is the case in general.
6. Conclusions
The most cost-effective maintenance approach
is the one that is able to provide and utilize the
required information about the changes in the
failure causes behavior related to machine condi-
tion, product quality, and the surroundings.
Knowing more information about the changes in
the failure causes enables the user to control and
99
maximize the utilization of the component life.
This results in minimizing the number of failure
(towards zero) and planned replacements.
The main conclusion is that by using the
suggested fuzzy evaluation methodology we are
able to identify and select, in advance, the most
informative (efficient) maintenance approach that
is the most cost-effective and suits the technical
system in its operating context, as is discussed in
Example A.
Selecting the most efficient maintenance policy,
plant objectives such as plant availability, product
quality, plant longevity and safety, etc. could be
achieved reliably. Consequently, higher product
quality and improved enterprise efficiency and
effectiveness will be achieved, which result in
higher productivity and hence better economy
and profitability.
References
Al-Najjar, B., 1996. Total quality maintenance an approach for
continuous reduction in costs of quality products. Journal
of Quality in Maintenance Engineering 2 (3), 4–20.
Al-Najjar, B., 1997. Condition-based maintenance: selection
and improvement of a cost-effective vibration-based policy
for rolling element bearings. Doctoral Thesis, Lund Uni-
versity, Sweden.
Al-Najjar, B., 1999. An approach for continuous reduction in
LCC when using integrated vibration-based maintenance: a
case study, COMADEM 99. Sunderland University, Sun-
derland, England, pp. 159–169.
Al-Najjar, B., 2000a. Product quality problems can be detected
earlier by vibration spectral analysis than by traditional
quality control diagrams: a case study. The International
Condition Monitoring Technology Showcase, Atlanta,
Mobil, USA, 3–7 April 2000.
Al-Najjar, B., 2000b. Accuracy, effectiveness and improvement
of vibration-based maintenance in paper mills; case studies.
Journal of Sound and Vibration 229 (2), 389–410.
Al-Najjar, B., 2000c. A graphical method to assess the
probability of failure of a rolling element bearing and its
residual life in paper mills when using a vibration
monitoring system. Proceedings of ICOMS 2000, Adelaide,
Australia, 23–26 May 2000.
Andersson, T., Rasmussen, M., 1999. Decision support in a
condition based environment. Journal of Quality in Main-
tenance Engineering 5 (2), 89–101.
Bamber, C., Sharp, J., Hides, M., 1999. Factors affecting
successful implementation of total productive maintenance:
UK manufacturing case study. Journal of Quality in
Maintenance Engineering 5 (3), 162–181.
100 B. Al-Najjar, I. Alsyouf / Int. J. Production Economics 84 (2003) 85–100
Bishop, C., 1995. Neural Networks for Pattern Recognition.
Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Carrasco, E., Rodriguez, J., Punal, A., Roca, E., Lema, J.,
2002. Rule-based diagnosis and supervision of a pilot-scale
wastewater treatment plant using fuzzy logic techniques.
Expert Systems with Applications 22, 11–20.
Chin, C., Klein, C., 1997. An efficient approach to solving fuzzy
MADM problems. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 88, 51–67.
Dekker, R., 1996. Applications of maintenance optimization
models: a review and analysis. Reliability Engineering and
System Safety 51, 229–240.
Geraghty, T., 1996. Achieving cost effective maintenance
through the integration of condition monitoring, reliability
centered maintenance and total productive maintenance.
Maintenance/Farnham Conference 11 (1), 26–30.
Gits, C., 1992. Design of maintenance concepts. International
Journal of Production Economics 24, 217–226.
Jardine, A., Banjevic, D., Malis, V., 1997. Optimal replacement
policy and the structure of software for condition-based
maintenance. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineer-
ing 3 (2), 109–119.
Kelly, A., 1997. Maintenance Strategy. Butterworth, Heine-
mann, London, UK.
Liang, G., 1999. Fuzzy MCDM based on ideal and anti-ideal
concepts. European Journal of Operational Research 112,
682–691.
Mann, L., Saxena, A., Knapp, G., 1995. Statistical-based or
condition-based preventive maintenance? Journal of Quality
in Maintenance Engineering 1 (1), 46–59.
Martorell, S., Sanchez, A., Serradell, V., 1999. Age-dependent
reliability model considering effects of maintenance and
working conditions. Reliability Engineering and System
Safety 64, 19–31.
Mckone, K., Wiess, E., 1998. TPM: planned and autonomous
maintenance: bridging the gap between practice and
research. Production and Operations Management 7 (4),
335–351.
Mckone, K., Schroeder, R., Kristy, C., 1999. Total productive
maintenance: a contextual view. Journal of Operations
Management 17, 123–144.
Moubray, J., 1991. Reliability-Centered-Maintenance. Butter-
worth Heinemann, UK.
Pintelon, L., Gelders, L., 1992. Maintenance management
decision-making. European Journal of Operational Re-
search 58, 301–317.
Rausand, M., 1998. Reliability centered maintenance. Relia-
bility Engineering and System Safety 60, 121–132.
Ross, T., 1995. Fuzzy Logic with Engineering Applications.
McGraw-Hill, New York.
Roubens, M., 1996. Choice procedures in fuzzy multi-criteria
decision analysis based on pair-wise comparisons. Fuzzy
Sets and Systems 84, 135–142.
Sandtorv, H., Rausand, M., 1990. RCM closing the loop
between design-and operation reliability. N-7034 Trond-
heim, Norway.
Setnes, M., Naute Lemke, H., Kaymak, U., 1998. Fuzzy
arithmetic-based interpolative reasoning for nonlinear
dynamic fuzzy systems. Engineering Application of Artifi-
cial Intelligence 11, 781–789.
Sherwin, D., 2000. A review of overall models for maintenance
management. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineer-
ing 6 (3), 138–164.
Srikrishana, S., Yadava, G., Rao, P., 1996. Reliability-centered
maintenance applied to power plant auxiliaries. Journal of
Quality in Maintenance Engineering 2 (1), 3–14.
Tanaka, K., 1996. An Introduction to Fuzzy Logic for Practical
Applications. Springer, New York.
Triantaphyllou, E., Lin, C., 1996. Development and evaluation
of five multiattribute DM methods. International Journal of
Approximate Reasoning 14 (4), 281–310.
Tsang, A., 1995. Condition-based maintenance: tools and
decision-making. Journal of Quality in Maintenance
Engineering 1 (3), 3–17.
Tsoukalas, L., Uhrig, R., 1997. Fuzzy and Neural Applications
in Engineering. Wiley, New York.
Wang, Y., Hayfield, M., 1999. Rolling contact fatigue failure
modes of lubricated silicon nitride in relation to ring crack
defects. Wear 225–229 (2), 1284–1292.
Williams, J., Davies, A., Drake, P., 1994. Condition Based
Maintenance and Machine Diagnostics. Chapman & Hall,
London.
Yang, Y., Kurfess, T., Liang, S., Danyluk, S., 1999. Applica-
tion of a specialized capacitance probe in bearing diagnosis.
Wear 225 (2), 1215–1221.
Zanakis, S., Solomon, A., Wishart, N., Dublish, S., 1998.
Multi-attribute decision-making: a simulation comparison
of select methods. European Journal of Operational
Research 107, 507–529.
Zimmermann, H., 1996. Fuzzy Set Theory and its Applications,
3rd Edition. Kluwer Academic Publishers, London.