The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1355-2511.htm

Factors influencing maintenance- Maintenance-

related
related investments in industry: a investments in
industry
multiple-case study
Camilla Lundgren, Jon Bokrantz and Anders Skoogh
Department of Industrial and Materials Science, Chalmers University of Technology,
Gothenburg, Sweden Received 22 August 2018
Revised 17 May 2019
28 October 2019
28 November 2019
Abstract Accepted 15 February 2020
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to ensure productive, robust and sustainable production systems by
enabling future investments in maintenance. This study aims to provide a deeper understanding of the
investment process and thereby facilitate future maintenance-related investments. The objectives are to describe
the investment process, map the decision support and roles involved and identify factors influencing the process.
Design/methodology/approach – The study was designed as a multiple-case study, with three industrial
cases of maintenance-related investments. A structured coding procedure was used to analyse the empirical
data from the cases.
Findings – This paper provides a deeper understanding of the process of maintenance-related investments.
Eleven factors influencing the investment process could be identified, three of which were seen in all three
cases. These three factors are: fact-based decision-support, internal integration and foresight.
Practical implications – Investments in modern maintenance are needed to ensure productive, robust and
sustainable production in the future. However, it is a challenge in manufacturing industry to justify
maintenance-related investments. This challenge may be solved by developing a decision-support system, or a
structured work procedure, that considers the findings of this study.
Originality/value – From this study, an extended view of the relation between quantifying effects of
maintenance and maintenance-related investment is proposed, including surrounding factors influencing the
investment process. The factors were identified using a structured and transparent coding procedure which is
rarely used in maintenance research.
Keywords Industrial maintenance, Investment, Manufacturing, Case study
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Manufacturing industry is currently undergoing a transition towards digitalized
manufacturing aimed at securing its future competitiveness. In digitalized manufacturing,
(also known as the German initiative Industry 4.0 (Xu et al., 2018)) production systems rely on
computer science and advanced manufacturing technology (Kagermann et al., 2013), with
high levels of automation and autonomy. It is critical to avoid unexpected stoppages and
disruptions in such systems, and the interest in maintenance has thus accelerated. Predictive
maintenance is one of the highest-ranked business cases in manufacturing industry
(McKinsey Global Institute, 2016). Meanwhile, many industrial companies are falling behind
due to underinvestment in developing maintenance, resulting in substantial maintenance
debt (Bossen and Ingemansson, 2016).
Although it has been shown that maintenance plays an important role in production
(Ylip€a€a et al., 2017), a challenge in industry is how to quantify the effects of maintenance and

The authors would like to thank SMASh, a research project financed by VINNOVA and Production
2030. They especially thank the case companies for commitment and collaboration. This work has been
performed within Production Area of Advance at Chalmers. The support is greatly appreciated.
We would like to thank the case companies and all individuals who contributed to this research, for
Journal of Quality in Maintenance
their commitment and collaboration. This work was financed by VINNOVA [grant number 2017-01652]. Engineering
This work has been performed within Production Area of Advance at Chalmers. The support is greatly © Emerald Publishing Limited
1355-2511
appreciated. DOI 10.1108/JQME-08-2018-0066
JQME justify maintenance-related investments (Bossen and Ingemansson, 2016). The effects are
usually deferred, making it difficult to verify the benefits upfront. The benefits of a condition-
monitoring system, for example, are obvious to maintenance personnel; they can use the
system to perform maintenance actions as needed. However, forecasting those benefits to
management and finance departments is a challenge, as the anticipated effects (e.g. reduced
failure rates, more efficient maintenance stops) are deferred and difficult to visualize.
Various models have been developed in maintenance research, aimed to quantify and
demonstrate the benefits of effective maintenance. For example, the models consider such
issues as cost reduction and/or increasing profit and the cost-effectiveness of condition-based
maintenance (CBM) (Komonen, 2002; Al-Najjar, 2007; Al-Najjar and Jacobsson, 2013) and net
present value (NPV) from an investment perspective (L€ofsten, 1999).
Despite the knowledge gained from research, manufacturing industry still faces the
challenge of quantifying the effects of maintenance. Because empirical evidence is limited,
many of the developed models’ practical value has been questioned (Sharma et al., 2011;
Fraser et al., 2015). Consideration needs to be given to the models’ intended industrial context
and to the users and stakeholders of maintenance-related investments, so that industry will
be encouraged to use these models.
This paper presents a case study of three industrial, maintenance-related investments
from Swedish industry. The aim is to build a deeper understanding of what is needed to
enable such investment. The objectives of this paper are to describe the investment process,
the decision support and the roles involved. The paper also aims to identify factors
influencing the investment process.

2. Theory
This chapter introduces digitalized manufacturing and maintenance, the expectations of
investments and the efforts needed for maintenance. It is followed by sections describing
investments in manufacturing, asset management and maintenance.

2.1 Digitalized manufacturing and maintenance

To ensure productivity and competitiveness, many manufacturing companies have started a
transition towards digitalized manufacturing. Digitalized manufacturing (also known as the
German initiative Industry 4.0 (Xu et al., 2018)) refers to manufacturing systems which rely on
computer science and advanced manufacturing technology (Kagermann et al., 2013). All
entities of such production system are expected to be interconnected, in order to exchange
information, make decentralized decisions and thus act autonomously. From a maintenance
perspective, it is anticipated to use the new technology to make machine failures forecastable
and predictable, using health assessment, prediction of remaining useful life and root-cause
analysis of failures (Lee et al., 2006; Monostori et al., 2016). Investments in technology (e.g.
sensors, analytical platforms and IT infrastructure) are essential. However, advanced
technology in manufacturing will require new, higher levels of competence of maintenance
employees; including IT, data analytics and social competences, such as teamwork and
communication (Dworschak and Zaiser, 2014; Jasiulewicz-Kaczmarek et al., 2017). Data
analytics, interoperable information systems and an emphasis on education and training are
some examples of themes highly likely to influence the maintenance organization (Bokrantz
et al., 2017). Taken as a whole, there need to be technical investments and investments in
human capital to realize digitalized manufacturing.

2.2 Investments in manufacturing

Investment decisions are of major importance for companies (Kortelainen, 2015), usually
following a structured, pre-defined process. The research interest in investment appraisal and
decision is extensive (see e.g. Tan et al., 2006; Kettunen, 2009). Methods such as cost
comparison, profit comparison, payback, NPV and annuity method (Pike and Neale, 2003; Maintenance-
G€oteze et al., 2008) have been developed to support investment decisions. Yet, making related
investment decisions might be complex, and some methods have been criticized in academic
circles, for example, the payback method (Narayanan, 1985; Fisher and Nof, 1987). The
investments in
method only considers the return on the project during the payback period, thus missing any industry
benefits beyond the normal payback period (Lefley, 1996). Some investment effects are
intangible and difficult to quantify. Swann and O’Keefe (1990) and Irani et al. (1997) highlight
challenges of investing in IT and advanced manufacturing technology, as the (often
intangible) benefits of such investment do not match common investment criterion. In
addition, it is likely to underestimate the performance impact of the investment, resulting in
hidden costs related to inefficiency (Roda and Macchi, 2018), and some financial evaluations
assume that taking no action carries no cost (Michael and Millen, 1985).

2.3 Asset management and maintenance

Asset management has grown as a strategy to consider all important aspects in the life cycle
of an asset – from concept, to investment and further to disposal – to make sure to utilize the
potential of the asset to a reasonable cost. The definition of asset management is: “the
coordinated activity of an organisation to realize value from assets”, where an asset is seen as:
“item, thing or entity that has potential or actual value to an organisation” (ISO 55000, 2014).
The idea is to get a systematic approach to assets’ relations to business objectives and to build
effective relationships between top management, asset management, operations and
maintenance (Kortelainen et al., 2015; Campbell et al., 2016). Operations and maintenance
are often referred to the major phases in an asset’s life cycle, as it is during its utilization (El-
Akruti, 2012). As early phases (e.g. investment) may influence later phases (i.e. operations and
maintenance) (Ojanen et al., 2012), maintenance aspects should be considered in an early
phase to ensure that the asset achieves its objectives (El-Akruti, 2012). Still, integration
between hierarchies and different value perspectives (from different life cycle phases of the
asset) have been reported as main challenges in asset management (El-Akruti, 2012; Ojanen
et al., 2012).
Asset management is mostly applied in oil and gas industry, energy production and
infrastructure and less in production companies (Roda and Macchi, 2018). In production
companies, systems are composed by several assets (e.g. machines) with different
characteristics of reliability, availability and maintainability. The interaction of these
assets and their ability to perform as a system are making asset management more
challenging for production companies to use (Roda and Macchi, 2018).
Even if maintenance aspects are involved in investment decisions, investments initiated
by the maintenance department are, in too many manufacturing companies, challenging to
justify – resulting in maintenance debt (Bossen and Ingemansson, 2016). Maintenance
researchers have highlighted maintenance being incorrectly seen as a cost driver and/or
“necessary evil” (Al-Najjar (2007); Alsyouf (2007); Salonen and Deleryd (2011); Al-Najjar and
Jacobsson (2013) among others). Various models have been developed to evaluate and
quantify effects of maintenance, aimed at demonstrating the importance of maintenance in
production. Examples include: value-driven maintenance (VDM) (Haarman and Delahay,
2004), Life cycle cost (LCC) (Waeyenbergh and Pintelon, 2002) and Life cycle profit (LCP)
(Ahlmann, 2002). Moreover, models have been developed to demonstrate how maintenance
relates to production losses and how effective maintenance can generate extra profit (see e.g.
Komonen (2002); Alsyouf (2007); Al-Najjar and Jacobsson (2013); Salonen and Deleryd (2011)).
In addition, Linneusson et al. (2016) proposed discrete event simulation (DES) as a tool for
considering the dynamics of a production system and the long-term effect of maintenance.
Models have also been proposed with the specific purpose of evaluating investments
related to maintenance (examples include: Al-Najjar (2007); Lee (2008)). Tam and Price (2008)
JQME suggest the maintenance investment index (MII) to evaluate the monetary return on
maintenance in relation to time spent on it, with the purpose of prioritizing activities
according to return on investment. In other studies, maintenance has been linked to NPV
(L€ofsten, 1999; Haarman and Delahay, 2004; Marais and Saleh, 2009) which is a common
criterion/method of investments.

3. Methodology
This chapter describes the qualitative multiple-case study design, selected to explore and
understand phenomena in real-world settings (Barratt et al., 2011; Yin, 2018). The study
includes three cases, plus a pilot case to test the research design. Figure 1 gives an overview of
the methodology used, which is described in the following sections.

3.1 Design
The research was designed as a multiple-case study, examining three empirical cases. This
method was chosen over the single-case study method, to reduce the risk of bias or
misjudgement of a single event and to augment generalizability (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2017).
The idea of case studies is to gain a deep understanding of a phenomenon and thus increase
the likelihood of the findings being used in practice. However, a strategic selection of the cases
is decisive for generalizability (Flyvbjerg, 2006). The study design was tested in a pilot case,
to assess its data collection and analysis procedures.

3.2 Case selection

The cases for this study were selected from different industries so as to include different
aspects. The aim was to find potential differences and benefit from the positive effects of
generalizability (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2017). The industries were: (1) discrete
manufacturing, (2) the process industry and (3) the infrastructure and traffic service. The
pilot case was in energy production.
In each case, the unit of analysis was an investment. For each site, a selection was made
regarding which investment to study, with pre-defined requirements and discussions with
the case companies, respectively. The requirements were set so that an actual situation could
be studied, with the effect of maintenance quantified and communicated and a guaranteed
opportunity to collect data on the experiences (interviews) and formalities (documents) of the
investment process. It must:
(1) Be for maintenance purposes (e.g. maintenance planning systems, replacement of
equipment to reduce direct maintenance costs).
(2) Include a cost “now” for anticipated future savings, or cost avoidance.
(3) Include calculation of costs and/or savings.
(4) Be documented with an official decision from a clearly stated decision-maker.
(5) Be possible to interview those involved in the investment.

Figure 1.
Overall methodology Case Data Data Present
Design
of the study selection collection analysis results
3.3 Data collection Maintenance-
Two sources were used for data collection: semi-structured interviews and archival sources related
(documents). The data collection relied mostly on interviews, with documents serving as
supplemental data sources for triangulation purposes (Denscombe, 2014; Yin, 2018). The
investments in
interviews allowed a deep understanding of the investment process to be gained, with details industry
of how it worked in practice and an understanding of how the process was experienced by
those involved. The number of interviewees in each case varied between three and five.
A maintenance employee and project manager of the investment project were interviewed in
all cases. The interviews were semi-structured and conducted face-to-face (Irvine et al., 2013).
The questions focussed on how the specific investment had been conducted, the decision-
support required, people involved and how they experienced the investment process. At the
end of each interview, interviewees were allowed to freely share any thoughts, concerns and
comments relevant to the topic (e.g. investment and maintenance) arising in the interview.
The interview duration varied from 30 to 60 min. Audio was recorded and most interviews
were transcribed within 24 h. The total transcribed pages for cases 1, 2, 3 were 23, 33 and 21,
respectively.
The documents collected varied a little between cases, with their availability depending on
the companies’ particular internal investment processes. However, investment proposals,
economic calculations, investment approvals and flow charts of internal investment
processes were collected in all cases. These documents were used primarily to study the
process of how an investment should be conducted, but also for triangulation purposes
(Denscombe, 2014; Yin, 2017).

3.4 Data analysis

Three within-case analyses and one cross-case analysis were conducted, as per Figure 2.
Data was collected from the different cases and analysed in parallel. When all within-case
analyses were complete, a cross-case analysis was conducted to identify similarities and
differences between the cases (Eisenhardt, 1989).
Analysis of the investment process for each case was an iterative process of reading and
interpreting interviews and studying investment documentation. The aim was to identify
phases in the investment process and decision support, with the analysis focussing on the
preparation and follow-up phases. Project phases were noted but not analysed further. Roles
in the process were identified from the interviews.
To identify factors influencing the investment process, interview data was analysed by
coding it with NVivo software (version 11). To secure the quality of coding, a coding strategy
was developed by two of the authors aimed at increasing credibility. Progress of the analysis
was also discussed regularly, to achieve a degree of consensus. For transparency purposes, a
data structure inspired by Corley and Gioia (2004) was used. A third-order coding was
predetermined, as it was anticipated that factors would be identified. First-order codes were

Data-
Within-case
collection
analysis 1
Case 1
Figure 2.
Data-
Within-case Cross-case Overview of data
collection
Case 2
analysis 2 analysis collection and data
analysis processes,
Data- Within-case with three within-case
collection
Case 3
analysis 3 analyses and one cross-
case analysis
JQME created from the raw data (interviews). The aim was to keep the first-order codes as close to
the raw data as possible, only processing them to make them short and intelligible.
Meanwhile, the material was coded, first-order codes were clustered into a second-order
coding, using a method inspired by constant comparison (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). This
data structure makes it possible to follow how the raw data was interpreted into results and
theoretical proposals. For a second-order code for it to be deemed an influencing factor, at
least three first-order codes were needed to define it. This would increase the likelihood of a
second-order code being correctly identified as an important factor influencing the
investment process.

4. Results and analysis

A within-case analysis was conducted in all three cases, including a description of the
investment process, the roles involved and the factors identified for influencing that
investment process. The data structure of these factors is visualized and supported with
interview quotes. The chapter concludes with a cross-case analysis.

4.1 Within-case analysis 1

Case 1 is from a discrete manufacturing company. During an annual maintenance stop,
glitches were detected in the axis of a critical robot that feeds five machines. The robot was
fairly old and had been phased out from the supplier’s range. Spare parts were manufactured
to order, with a delivery time of 4–6 weeks. Failure of this robot would stop all five machines,
but a 4–6 week production stoppage while awaiting spare parts was not an option. The
company needed to either produce a sufficiently large buffer to handle such a long stoppage,
or have spare parts on hand or invest in a new robot. Figure 3 summarizes the companys
investment process, phases and decision support.
The process began with maintenance personnel identifying a need. This need was broadly
outlined in a consequence assessment and accompanied by a rough cost estimate of the whole
project, drafted by two maintenance managers. The consequence assessment and cost
estimate served as decision support for starting a pre-study. The decision was taken by a
group called VSG (a works management group, “Verkstadsstyrgrupp” in Swedish),
comprising the production manager, plant manager, financial manager and maintenance
manager. During the pre-study, a project proposal was created in which alternative solutions
and their costs were described. This involved several functions in the line organization:
maintenance personnel, production personnel and a financial controller. The costs of the
alternatives were mainly estimates.
From there, the decision was taken by VSG to go on defining the project. This required
development of a needs description, a more detailed project description and cost calculations
for the various alternatives. The decision support also included profit calculations and
payback time. The project was green-lit by the company management, with the project

Implementation,
Need Pre-study Defining installation, Usage
commissioning

Figure 3. Decision-support Decision-support Decision-support Follow-up

Description of the • Consequence • Project • Description of need • Technical
investment process assessment description/proposal • Project description availability of
• Rough cost estimates • Alternatives • Alternatives critical
and decision support
• Cost estimates • Profit calculations equipment
required in Case 1 • Payback
implementation, installation and commissioning managed by one of the maintenance Maintenance-
managers. During subsequent usage, the availability of the newly installed equipment was related
monitored, as the equipment was considered critical. The follow-up is not directly linked to
the investment and there was no follow-up of the anticipated effect of the investment. Table 1
investments in
summarizes the roles involved in the process. industry
In Case 1, six factors were identified which influence the investment process. Figure 4
shows the data structure of these factors.
During the interview analysis, it was clear that fact-based decision support (1) is an
important factor and that collecting data to quantify savings or cost avoidance is a challenge.
Several times during the interviews, people mentioned that it was easier to argue in “soft
terms”. In other words, describing what the consequences are rather than describing them
quantitatively. However, the decision support should include quantitative economic terms.
The financial controller said, “and you talk about it as if everybody could understand. Okay,
but what is it worth? We need to go from the emotional, [. . .], and somehow describe it in
economic terms”. The interviewees mentioned that a lot of estimates needed to be done.
However, at the same time the maintenance manager stated that, “the data is probably
available somehow, but there’s a lot to compile”. Regarding estimates, the financial controller
said, “trying to describe the effect in economic terms somehow and that can be a challenge.
But it’s better to do a flat-rate calculation” and went on to say, “the estimates are quite
subjective”. Speaking in terms of accounting issues, the financial controller mentioned the
challenge of proving the value of investment: “You can regard it as the value for which it was
acquired, but it’s probably worth its potential alternative cost [cost avoidance in other words].
From an investment perspective rather than an accounting one. But we canno’t account it for
more than its acquisition cost”.
Another important factor identified was internal integration (2); how well the different
departments in the company collaborate and understand each other’s perspectives. The
maintenance manager stated that, “it’s clear that we are just a small part of the whole
corporation” and was explaining that there was limited internal integration as there was no
common understanding of the production and equipment or feedback from decision-makers
on the investment proposals. The production section manager, who was responsible for the
equipment, was quite critical of the decision-makers, as they had questioned the estimates
and the consequences of not replacing the robot: “And sometimes, your estimates are
questioned. ‘Is this really true? Do we really need it? Can’t we wait a bit longer?’’ You push for
it, because of course it hasn’t happened yet”. Clearly, it was difficult to get everyone to
understand the benefits of being proactive, especially those who were distanced from
production.

Role in investment process Function in line organization

Equipment owner Production section manager

Preparations Maintenance managers
Maintenance personnel
Production personnel
Financial controller
Project manager Maintenance manager
Decision-maker Production manager
Plant manager
Financial manager
Maintenance manager
Company management
Table 1.
Roles in the investment
process in Case 1 were
represented by the
functions in the line
organization as
shown here
Case 1
JQME

Figure 4.
Data structure and
factors identified in
1st order coding 2nd order coding 3rd order coding

“And we could prove that mathematically.” Fact-based decision-

“It’s difficult to know the exact status of the equipment.” support

“We had a lot of help from our financial controller.”

Internal integration
“It’s clear that we’re just a small part of the whole corporation.”

“If everything was more predictable, it would be easier.”

Foresight
“It’s not appreciated that things crop up.”
Factors
“The investment process was complex; understanding what we were supposed to do.” Well-defined
“We currently have instructions on how to write the decision-support.” investment process

“Writing these decision-supports is a learning process; explaining why it is needed.”

Communication
“As technichians, we need to be clear about our message.”

“We’re taking the decision early on about whether we should proceed.”

Step-by-step-evaluation
“It´s good that we have VSG, to decide whether we actually need to do it or not.”

Note(s): Fact-based decision-support, internal integration, foresight, well-defined investment

process, communication and step-by-step- evaluation
 At the same time, it was advantageous to exercise foresight and be proactive, for the Maintenance-
chance to create budgetary space early on, making foresight (3) an important factor. The related
financial controller said, “It’s not appreciated that things crop up. It’s like, ‘oops, now we need
to buy this’, or ‘oops, we didn’t see that coming’. But if we have it in our budget, in our long-
investments in
term plan, then often there’s no problem because then we can plan for it”. However, another industry
comment was that arguing for reactive action was easier. A quote from the production section
manager: “Then it’s a fact. Now we have a production stop. It’s always easier to repair
something that’s already broken, because then the maintenance is using budgeted money,
unlike the other way, where there’s an investment and it takes a different path” (speaking of
the investment process).
However, the investment process is well defined (4), making the preparatory work at least
a little easier; this was identified as a factor influencing the process. Other factors identified in
this case were communication (5) and step-by-step-evaluation (6). The maintenance manager
spoke of it as a learning process for explaining and communicating what you actually want to
achieve. In the step-by-step evaluation, the investment process includes ever more extensive
and detailed project descriptions and calculations. Early on, the VSG group decided whether
they should go ahead with the proposal, before commencing extensive preparations for
investment decision support.

4.2 Within-case analysis 2

Case 2 is from an infrastructure and traffic service company which owns and operates a
bridge: an important connection from Sweden to the rest of the European continent. Variable
traffic signs along the bridge are used to redirect traffic as necessary. For example, in windy
conditions when the speed limit needs reduction, these variable signs are used instead of
someone physically going out and erecting temporary sheet metal signs. The variable signs
have been there since the bridge opened and were now quite old. They have become
unreliable and cannot always be activated remotely. The company’s investment process
phases and decision support are summarized in Figure 5.
The process for this company began with their re-investment calculation, whereby a re-
investment date is estimated for all new equipment. Budgeting is not a formal part of the
investment process, but in this case the re-investment calculation identified the need and is
therefore included in the process description. The project owners (facility owner, technology
manager and traffic manager) decided to budget for this project. It was then taken to the
definition phase, whereby a project proposal is developed and alternative solutions described
by the technology responsible and project manager. The project manager was appointed
from the company’s project department. The project owners decided that the project should
continue and a project plan was developed in the initial project phase, and purchase
documents and a successive cost estimation for the project were obtained. The project
manager was responsible for the preparations, but was assisted by technology-responsible,
their own maintenance personnel, the maintenance supplier and an internal consultant.
The company management green-lit the project, which then went ahead. The overall cost of
the project was monitored, to help inform future projects. However, the anticipated effect of

Defining Purchase, Close

Budgeting Initiate project
project implement project Figure 5.
Description of the
Decision-support Decision-support Decision-support Follow-up investment process
• Re-investment • Project proposal • Project plan • Total cost of and decision support
calculation • Alternative • Purchase documents project required in Case 2
solutions • Successive calculation
JQME the investment has not yet been followed up. Table 2 summarizes the roles involved in the
investment.
In Case 2, eight factors influencing the investment process were identified. Their data
structure appears in Figure 6.
During the interview with the facility owner, the discussion often returned to their
company culture (1) and pragmatic way of working (defined as a factor of company culture in
the analysis). When it comes to preparing decision support, the pragmatic culture commonly
results in shortcuts being taken. As the facility owner said, “We’re pragmatic. We dont have
so much of that [decision-support]. Typically, decision-support was presented to me – the
traffic signs have lasted longer than expected, but we do now have a lot of maintenance work
on them. Typically, it’s the project plan. In PowerPoint format”. Although they are pragmatic
about decision support, some of it is still needed. However, it was also mentioned that
employees sometimes expected no formal decision support to be needed at all.
Furthermore, internal integration (2) was identified as a factor influencing the process.
Helpfulness is a key concept in the company, with everybody willing to collaborate and help
each other. While the internal consultant was explaining people’s various perspectives, he
stated “a key concept built into the company is helpfulness and so on”. People are willing to
help and collaborate, reducing barriers between functions in the line organization and making
it easier for those who are supposed to take the decision to get information.
Many interviewees mentioned their limited quantifications and follow-up as a weakness.
The facility owner said, “we can get better at quantifying the benefits of our projects and be
clear on that”. On the other hand, several interviewees said they based their decisions on
actual data, even if there sometimes were rough estimates. This makes fact-based decision
support (3) an important factor. Even if those in the company see themselves as pragmatic
and also consider non-quantitative aspects, some data-based calculations are needed. As for
follow-up, one comment was: “I canno’t show you how we do our follow up calculation; it is a
rock nroll activity. I’d say we’re bad at it. We’re always basing it on the total cost of the
project. But a follow up calculation if the project was targeting an anticipated effect, that
doesn’t happen”. The maintenance provider’s manager agrees: “It’s within the scope of the
project manager to follow it up. It’s not clearly defined. When the operations take over and
maintenance personnel say we shouldn’t repair these things, but do it anyway. That chain
isn’t clear enough”. The project manager had another opinion for it: “Follow-up if the benefit
came true? The project isn’t doing it. So, I dont know if we’re doing it properly. But I’d stick
my neck out and say that we could be better”. Nevertheless, many interviewees mentioned
that it would be beneficial to follow up the effect of investment, to evaluate whether the results
were as expected, but also to gain more data and lessons which can be applied to the next

Role in investment process Function in line organization

Owner of equipment Facility owner

Preparer Technology-responsible
Project manager
Maintenance personnel
Table 2. Internal consultant
Roles in the investment Maintenance supplier
process in Case 2 were Project manager Project manager
represented by the Decision-maker Facility owner
functions in the line Technology manager
organization as Traffic manager
shown here Company management
 1st order coding 2nd order coding 3rd order coding

“We’re pragmatic.”
Company culture
“Our philosophy is that the market has the solutions.”

“A key concept built into the company is helpfulness and so on.”

Internal integration
“I’ve heard in the corridor that there’s quite a lot of maintenance of the signs.”

“When we start the investment, it is based on real data.” Fact-based decision-

“It’s very different compared to just using intuition to make decisions.” support

“Then we’d have just gone off at a tangent and we don’t often do that.”
Innovative thinking
“He’s also been trained to think this way; do we really need all the signs?”
Factors
“When budgeting for investment, we’re using calculations for what soon will be obsolete.”
Foresight
“We need to maintain good planning and preparation.”

“The EU’s directives set the bar high for procurement.” External factors (e.g.
“We couldn’t have run the procurement like this in Sweden.” regulations, laws)

“I don’t think people are trained to make these types of calculations.”

Competence
“I believe that competence development and tools will provide better decision support.”

“We can show it as it is.”

Transparancy
“More transparent financial accounting would make the follow-up process easier.”

Note(s): Company culture, internal integration, fact-based decision-support, innovative thinking, foresight,
external factors, competence and transparency
Maintenance-

industry
related
investments in

structure and factors

Figure 6.
Description of the data

identified in Case 2
JQME project and its decision support. However, the facility owner pointed out that the test
operation period of the traffic signs was still ongoing during the interviews, adding that it
was therefore not an issue that follow-up calculations hadn’t been done for this project.
Leaving aside the calculations, it was clear the organization wanted the signs, which was
argument enough. The facility owner said: “We are not calculating whether it’s profitable to
have variable traffic signs or not. We want them, but we dont need as many as before”. It was
likened to having asphalt on the road: “I mean, how do you calculate the payback from
asphalt on the road? . . . We would never say, no, it’s too expensive to have asphalt”. Asphalt
is needed to run their business and traffic signs were stated as being almost as important.
However, the fact they questioned the number of signs needed, (defined as a factor of
innovative thinking (4)) was seen as a strength. The internal consultant stated: “I liked how
we would see a need, then go outside our offices and look in from outside. Do we need to do the
same as we’ve always done? Should it always be as before? Questioning it from the bottom.
And that’s what we did here. Why do we have all these signs? What do they mean? Are there
any other ways of doing it?” Their innovating thinking made them come up with better
solutions which the decision-makers didn’t want to reject. The facility owner was also clear
that the signs should be there: “We want variable traffic signs” came up several times. Also
identified was being prepared to the need of new signs (a factor of foresight (5)). When the
traffic signs would need replacing was calculated when they first were installed. This made
the company able to budget for this project and plan their finances accordingly. Foresight
was important, so that this event did not come as a surprise. Moreover, the manager of the
maintenance supplier stated that it was important to “maintain good planning and
preparation” and forecast what may happen during the investment process.
Other factors identified in this case were external factors (6), competence (7) and
transparency (8). The external factors refer to regulations and laws, with EU directives and
public procurement affecting their process. Competence was mentioned mainly in the context
of providing quantitative decision support. People are not trained to make advanced financial
calculations, but tools and templates will probably provide better decision support. For
transparency, it was highlighted that “we can show it as it is”, meaning it is not necessary to
be “too imaginative” when making investment calculations. Moreover, accounting was
mentioned as something inaccessible and desirable to be more accessible. However, it was
also said that accounting does not always reflect the way reality looks.

4.3 Within-case analysis 3

The last case, Case 3, is from the process industry. At the plant, there are platforms to access
equipment and walk around at the plant. Every year, the company invests in new platforms
as they wear out or need redesigning according to new access requirements. Not all platforms
are replaced at the same time, but bit-by-bit depending on the urgency and sum of money
agreed for the investment. In this case, temporary-access platforms had been built for parts of
the plant and those responsible for these areas wanted them replaced by permanent
platforms. The companys investment process, phases and decision support are summarized
in Figure 7.

Implementation,
End project/
Pre-study Budgeting Pre-projection installation,
Figure 7. follow-up
commissioning
Description of the
investment process Decision-support Decision-support Decision-support Follow-up
and decision support • Rough project • Project • Project description • Total cost of
required in Case 3 proposal description • Cost ±10% project
• Cost ±50% • Cost ±25% • SHE-analysis
 The type of investment described in this case is made annually. A rough project proposal Maintenance-
and cost estimate with a 50% margin were developed during the pre-study by the related
maintenance group manager (leading the area where the platforms were). The section
manager then decided to continue. During the budgeting, the project and its scope were
investments in
described in more detail and the cost estimate developed with a 25% margin. The industry
maintenance group manager was responsible for all preparations, but was assisted in
gathering input for the decision support by the maintenance personnel, operations personnel,
technology department, inspections department and design engineer. The project manager
(an external consultant) assisted in the preparations. During pre-projection, the project
description was developed in more detail and the cost of the project estimated to be ±10%.
The decision support would also include a safety, health and environment (SHE) analysis. All
material relating to decision support was forwarded to the company management for a
decision on whether to commence the project. The total cost of the project was followed up
after installation and commissioning, so that more accurate cost calculations could be made
for future projects. The roles involved in the process are summarized in Table 3.
Four factors influencing the investment process were identified in Case 3. The data
structure of these factors can be seen in Figure 8.
The investment in Case 3 was an annual one, but even though it was “already decided”
that this should happen, fact-based decision support (1) was identified as an important factor.
Instead of if they make an investment, it was more a question of how many platforms can be
replaced? The maintenance manager for the area where the platforms are located had learned
from previous years and said: “The first year I did this investment, me and one of the project
managers and the construction engineer measured everything. Then they did a thorough cost
estimate, reaching a very high cost; much higher than the project was approved for. But that
was good, because then I had a precedent for next year”. As the project proposal makes its
way through the investment process, the accuracy of the calculations increases with each
phase. While discussing the data used for the calculations, one of the project managers said:
“The data is actually from the processing department. [. . .], and you have to be 80% sure of
what you say because you then sit down with others who will challenge you”. Thus, fact-
based decision support is important, even for annual investment.
Foresight (2) was considered important as well, because the investment process has clear,
well-defined dates for when all proposals should be handed in. “The phases have very clear
dates during the year. When they should be handed in, when they should be approved” was
the comment from the maintenance manager for the area. One of the project managers agreed:
“There are incredibly strict dates here [. . .] Without foresight, you will no’t be able to
proceed”.

Role in investment process Function in line organization

Owner of equipment Production department

Preparer Maintenance group manager
Maintenance personnel
Operations personnel
Technology department Table 3.
Inspections department Roles in the investment
Construction engineer process in Case 3 were
Project manager (consultant) represented by the
Project manager Project manager (consultant) functions in the line
Decision-maker Company management organization as
Section manager shown here
Case 3
JQME

Figure 8.

factors identified in
This figure describes
the data structure and
1st order coding 2nd order coding 3rd order coding

“You go out and measure and then calculate what it actually costs.” Fact-based decision-
“You have to be 80% sure of what you say.” support

“Without foresight, you won’t be able to proceed.”

Foresight
“The section managers want to know what will happen in the coming years.”
Factors
“More bridges between the departments, more openness.”
Internal integration
“Many stakeholders are involved and it wasn’t easy to arrange a meeting with everybody.”

“It goes on; you follow the routines of the process.” Well-defined
“How everything should be is clearly defined.” investment process

Note(s): Fact-based decision-support, foresight, internal integration and a well-defined investment process
 Other important factors identified in this case were internal integration (3) and a well- Maintenance-
defined investment process (4). One challenge discussed in some of the interviews was the related
ability to gather everybody involved for a meeting and finding the right person for an opinion
on a given issue. One of the company’s project managers promoted more bridges between
investments in
departments, so that they could collaborate better: “What I really appreciate is transparency industry
and bridges between departments; not the bureaucracy we have to follow. But that’s me”.
How the collaboration should work between departments was not well defined. However, the
investment process itself was well defined, with a clear description of each phase, templates
for decision support and a computerized system in which everything relating to the
investment can be monitored.

4.4 Cross-case analysis

The cross-case analysis was conducted to identify similar phases in the investment process
between the cases and decision support and roles. Factors in the investment process where
compared across the cases, to identify common factors and differences. A general description
of an investment process is shown in Figure 9.
Although each company investment process is unique when it comes to the detail, there
are general similarities. Each process starts with a need. For example, each time new
equipment is installed, the company in Case 2 uses a calculation to predict when it will next
need replacing. For Case 3, this was an annual investment which is “always needed”, but Case
1 picks this up during its annual maintenance stop. In the case of identified needs, a more or
less formal pre-study is conducted. Cases 1 and 3 require a more formal pre-study, while Case
2 requires a proposal and alternatives, but no detailed investigation. In all three cases, the
next phase (Define project) includes a full project description/plan and some kind of
calculation. What kind of calculation needed differed between the cases. In Case 1, payback
was important, while Cases 2 and 3 only considered the total project cost. Moreover, Cases 1
and 3 required more accurate and extensive calculations and had stricter investment criteria.
Although the specific documents differ between the cases, the decision support for all three
should become more and more accurate in each phase.
In all cases, it was possible to identify the roles of equipment owner, preparer, project
manager and decision-maker. All three cases are from different industries and businesses.
This makes the similarities and differences of functions in the line organization and their role
in the investment process less important. Rather, it is worth pointing out that many functions
from the line organization and departments are involved (maintenance, production/
operations, finance, various levels of management and so on). They must all collaborate in
preparing all decision support and then make a proper decision.
Three common factors were identified in all three cases: fact-based decision-support,
internal integration and foresight. Fact-based decision support is especially important in
Cases 1 and 3, which highlighted the need for quantitative numbers. This is important for
Case 2 as well, but in this instance, the calculations are “simpler”, with no strict investment

Implementation,
Define End project/
Need Pre-study installation,
project follow-up
commissioning

Decision-support Decision-support Decision-support Follow-up Figure 9.

• Rough • Project • Project description • Total cost of General description of
description description/proposal • Project plan project
• Rough cost • Alternatives • Calculations the investment process
estimates • Cost estimates • Cost and necessary decision
• Profit support
• Payback
JQME criteria. For Case 2, softer arguments have more effect than in Cases 1 and 3. In all cases, the
preparatory work involves a lot of people. This makes it important for everybody to
collaborate and share information (internal integration), so that the right decision support is
given and for a common understanding of what must be done. In Case 1, mention was made of
a bad attitude to maintenance. There was a wish for maintenance to be seen as something
positive and necessary; something that doesn’t always need strict payback, as also discussed
in Case 2. In Case 3, this was mentioned during a discussion on safety and the work
environment. Foresight was considered important in all three cases. In general, getting a
proposal approved was much easier if there was financial room for it in the investment
budget. If things cropped up unexpectedly, it would be questioned and possibly postponed.
The major difference in the factors between cases was that Cases 1 and 3 focus much more
on the investment’s actual process, having a well-defined investment process (Cases 1 and 3)
and step-by-step evaluation (Case 1). In Case 2, on the other hand, factors such as company
culture, transparency and innovative thinking were identified.
A total of 11 factors were identified. Table 4 shows all these and gives on overview of the
similarities and differences between the cases.

5. Discussion
Manufacturing industry is currently in a transition towards digitalized manufacturing, with
high expectations on autonomous systems and thus on maintenance. At the same time, there
is a substantial maintenance debt due to underinvestment in developing maintenance
(Bossen and Ingemansson, 2016). The aim of this study has been to provide a deeper
understanding of the process of maintenance-related investments to facilitate future
investments. This paper describes three empirical cases of industrial practice in maintenance-
related investments and presents the phases in the investment process, decision support
needed, roles involved and factors influencing it.
This study shows the importance of being able to see each other’s perspectives,
collaborate and share information (referred to as a factor of internal integration). The majority
of the papers presenting a model to quantify effects of maintenance (in section 2.3) highlight
the problem of different values perspectives, where maintenance is incorrectly considered as
a “necessary evil”. Organizational perspectives to this problem are mentioned in some of the
papers. However, the main focus is to quantify the effect of maintenance or to investigate
maintenance actions, changes and investments (see e.g. Komonen, 2002; Al-Najjar, 2007; Lee,
2008; Alsyouf, 2007). This can be interpreted as an assumption of a direct relation between
quantification and investment. This assumption may not be wrong but is likely to be limited.

Factor Case 1 Case 2 Case 3

Fact-based decision support X X X

Internal integration X X X
Foresight X X X
Well-defined investment process X X
Communication X
Step-by-step evaluation X
External factors X
Company culture X
Table 4. Transparency X
List of all factors Competence X
identified in each case Innovative thinking X
Based on the findings in this study, the authors propose that the view of the relation between Maintenance-
quantifying the effect of maintenance and investment should be extended. Figure 10 related
describes the existing view and the proposed extended one, with the intention of targeting
both researchers and maintenance practitioners.
investments in
The existing view assumes a direct link between the focal concept: quantifying the effect industry
of maintenance and the desired consequence: maintenance-related investment. The extended
view considers surrounding factors. The type of factors and their influence are represented
by the green boxes in the proposed extended view. Correlating factors are things that happen
while the effect of the maintenance is quantified. However, the correlation (what causes what)
is unknown. Antecedents are things or events that need to exist before the effect of
maintenance is quantified. For example, data availability is antecedent, as it is needed to exist
before the quantification. Moderators are things that reinforce the outcome of quantification,
such as culture. Quantification is considered more important in a quantitative culture than in
a qualitative culture. Mediators are things created by quantification, as well as being enablers
of investment. Credibility is an example of something that can be fulfilled by quantification,
while credibility is something that further enables the investment. Existing maintenance
models can be used to quantify the effect, but to use them to their full potential as support in
investment decisions, there is a need to empirically investigate how the models can be used
(considering the factors presented in this paper). The authors propose research that:
investigates more factors; identifies whether these factors are correlates, antecedents,
moderators or mediators; identifies factors of major importance to the investment process.
Asset management is effective in building relationships between top management, asset
management, operations and maintenance (Kortelainen et al., 2015; Campbell et al., 2016),
where maintenance aspects are considered early in the life cycle (such as investment) (Ojanen
et al., 2012; El-Akruti, 2012). Asset management has been proven to be successfully applied
in contexts with one or a few assets, but the use is more limited in production companies
where the asset (i.e. the production system) is composed by several interconnected assets

Existing view

Quantifying effects Maintenance-

of maintenance related investment
(focal concept) (consequence)

Proposed extended view

Correlates

Figure 10.
The existing, limited
view of how
Quantifying effects Maintenance- quantifying the effect
Antecedents of maintenance Mediators related investment of maintenance will
(focal concept) (consequence)
lead to maintenance-
related investment,
compared to the
proposed, extended
view where other
Moderators
factors influence
JQME (e.g. machines) to produce value (Roda and Machhi, 2018). There are often several operations
and maintenance teams, as well as several managers, for different areas in the factory. As a
result, integration barriers reported in asset management (El-Akruti, 2012; Ojanen et al., 2012)
are more complex with the systems perspective in production companies. Given these
limitations, it is motivated to continue research on how to work with internal integration and
maintenance-related investments in a production context.
This study highlights the importance of fact-based decision support, where quantitative
decision support and strict financial investment criteria were more prevalent in Cases 1 and 3,
compared to Case 2. It was addressed in all cases that the benefits of maintenance are difficult
to account and therefore challenging to communicate, as costs of stoppages and failures are
not visible until they raise. Avoided stoppages are invisible in accounting and thus difficult to
visualize and communicate. The financial controller in Case 1 was aware of this issue. The
interviewee mentioned that the value of an investment could never be accounted at more than
its acquisition price, even by arguing that the investment was worth at least the cost it had
helped avoid. Still, financial evaluations often assume a zero cost when nothing is done, as
well as only consider benefits during the payback period (Michael and Millen, 1985; Lefley,
1996). In addition, it is likely to underestimate the performance impact of the investment,
resulting in hidden costs related to inefficiency (Roda and Macchi, 2018).
This study was designed as a multiple-case study examining three industrial cases. It is
important to point out that the aim of case studies is not full generalizability for an entire
population, but to gain a deep understanding of a phenomenon in real-world settings.
However, the findings in this study should not be underestimated, as strategic case selection
(here, cases from three different industries) is decisive for generalizability (Flyvbjerg, 2006;
Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2017). The authors suggest more cases like these, to continue to explore
and develop this area of research. Moreover, this study focussed on technology investments,
to increase the likelihood of being able to collect data from several sources (e.g. interviews,
investment documents) for triangulation purposes (Denscombe, 2014; Yin, 2017). However, it
is important to include human capital (such as competence development, new employees) in
future research to meet the expectations on maintenance in digitalized manufacturing
(Dworchak and Zaiser, 2014; Jasiulewicz-Kaczmarek et al., 2017; Bokrantz et al., 2017).
The aim of this study has been to provide a deeper understanding of the investment
process to facilitate future maintenance-related investments. The factors identified in this
study resulted in a proposed, extended view of the relation between quantifying the effect of
maintenance and maintenance-related investment. From an industrial perspective, the
practical problem to justify maintenance-related investments may potentially be solved by a
decision-support system, or a structured work procedure, considering the findings in
this study.

6. Conclusion
Many industrial companies are falling behind due to underinvestment in developing
maintenance, resulting in substantial maintenance debt. As a solution to this challenge,
previous maintenance research has focussed on developing maintenance models which
quantify the effects of maintenance. To complement, this paper has set out to describe three
empirical cases of industrial practice in maintenance-related investments. It has presented a
case study of three maintenance-related investments in Swedish industry and described the
investment process in terms of its phases, required decision support and roles involved.
However, the key takeaway from this study is that the assumption of a direct relation
between models for quantifying the effect of maintenance and investment is limited; other
factors also influence it. In these cases, 11 factors were identified, three of them common to all
cases: fact-based decision support, internal integration and foresight.
 The authors propose an extended view (which considers surrounding factors) of the Maintenance-
relation between quantifying the effect of maintenance and maintenance-related investment. related
To solve the practical problems in industry, the results of this study should serve as a basis to
develop decision support and/or a structured work procedure. This would enable
investments in
maintenance-related investments and secure future competitiveness with productive, industry
robust and sustainable production systems.

References
Ahlmann, H. (2002), “From traditional practice to the new understanding: the significance of the Life
Cycle Profit concept in the management of industrial enterprises”, in Maintenance Management
and Modelling conference, International Foundation for Reseach in Maintenance.
Al-Najjar, B. and Jacobsson, M. (2013), “A computerised model to enhance the cost-effectiveness of
production and maintenance dynamic decisions: a case study at Fiat”, Journal of Quality in
Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 114-127.
Al-Najjar, B. (2007), “The lack of maintenance and not maintenance which costs: a model to describe
and quantify the impact of vibration-based maintenance on company’s business”, International
Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 107 No. 1, pp. 260-273.
Alsyouf, I. (2007), “The role of maintenance in improving companies’ productivity and profitability”,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 105 No. 1, pp. 70-78.
Barratt, M., Choi, T.Y. and Li, M. (2011), “Qualitative case studies in operations management: trends,
research outcomes, and future research implications”, Journal of Operations Management,
Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 329-342.
Bokrantz, J., Skoogh, A., Berlin, C. and Stahre, J. (2017), “Maintenance in digitalised manufacturing:
Delphi-based scenarios for 2030”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 191,
pp. 154-169.
Bossen, H. and Ingemansson, J. (2016), “Digitalisation of Swedish Industry - mapping Swedish forces
and challenges”, translated from Digitalisering av Svensk Industri – Kartl€aggning av svenska
styrkor och utmaningar, [Swedish], available at: https://strategiska.se/app/uploads/
digitalisering-av-svensk-industri.pdf (accessed 9 October 2019).
Campbell, J.D., Jardine, A.K. and McGlynn, J. (2016), Asset Management Excellence: Optimizing
Equipment Life-Cycle Decisions, CRC Press, Boca Raton.
Corley, K.G. and Gioia, D.A. (2004), “Identity ambiguity and change in the wake of a corporate spin-
off”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 173-208.
Denscombe, M. (2014), The Good Research Guide: For Small-Scale Social Research Projects, McGraw-
Hill Education, Maidenhead.
Dworschak, B. and Zaiser, H. (2014), “Competences for cyber-physical systems in manufacturing–first
findings and scenarios”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 25, pp. 345-350.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), “Building theories from case study research”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 532-550.
El-Akruti, K. (2012), “The strategic role of engineering asset management in capital intensive
organisations”, Doctor of Philosophy Thesis, School of Mechanical, Materials and Mechatronic
Engineering, University of Wollongong, available at: https://ro.uow.edu.au/theses/3539.
Fisher, E.L. and Nof, S.Y. (1987), “Knowledge-based economic analysis of manufacturing systems”,
Journal of Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 137-150.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2006), “Five misunderstandings about case-study research”, Qualitative Inquiry, Vol. 12
No. 2, pp. 219-245.
Fraser, K., Hvolby, H.H. and Tseng, T.L.B. (2015), “Maintenance management models: a study of the
published literature to identify empirical evidence a greater practical focus is needed”,
International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 635-664.
JQME Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative
Theory, Aldine Transaction, New Brunswick.
G€otze, U., Northcott, D. and Schuster, P. (2008), Investment Appraisal: Methods and Models, Springer-
Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg.
Haarman, M. and Delahay, G. (2004), Value Driven Maintenance – New Faith in Maintenance:
Mainnovation, Mainnoviation, Dordrecht.
Irani, Z., Ezingeard, J.-N. and Grieve, R. (1997), “Integrating the costs of a manufacturing IT/IS
infrastructure into the investment decision-making process”, Technovation, Vol. 17 Nos 11-12,
pp. 695-706.
Irvine, A., Drew, P. and Sainsbury, R. (2013), “‘Am I not answering your questions properly?
’Clarification, adequacy and responsiveness in semi-structured telephone and face-to-face
interviews”, Qualitative Research, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 87-106.
ISO 55000 (2014), Asset Management – Overview, Principles and Terminology, International
Organization for Standardization, BSI London, UK.
Jasiulewicz-Kaczmarek, M., Saniuk, A. and Nowicki, T. (2017), “The maintenance management in the
macro-ergonomics context”, in Advances in Social and Occupational Ergonomics, Springer,
Cham, Vol. 487, pp. 35-46.
Kagermann, H., Helbig, J., Hellinger, A. and Wahlster, W. (2013), “Recommendations for implementing
the strategic initiative INDUSTRIE 4.0: securing the future of German manufacturing industry;
final report of the Industrie 4.0”, Working Group: Forschungsunion.
Kettunen, J. (2009), “Applications of stochastic modeling for investment decision-making under
market uncertainties”, Doctoral dissertation, Helsinki University of Technology, ISBN:978-952-
248-148-1.
Komonen, K. (2002), “A cost model of industrial maintenance for profitability analysis and
benchmarking”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 79 No. 1, pp. 15-31.
Kortelainen, H., R€aikk€onen, M. and Komonen, K. (2015), “Corporate asset management-a semi-
quantitative business-driven approach to support the evaluation of improvement options”,
International Journal of Strategic Engineering Asset Management, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 208-222.
Lee, J., Ni, J., Djurdjanovic, D., Qiu, H. and Liao, H. (2006), “Intelligent prognostics tools and e-
maintenance”, Computers in Industry, Vol. 57 No. 6, pp. 476-489.
Lee, H.-H. (2008), “The investment model in preventive maintenance in multi-level production
systems”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 112 No. 2, pp. 816-828.
Lefley, F. (1996), “The payback method of investment appraisal: a review and synthesis”, International
Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 207-224.
Linneusson, G., Galar, D. and Wickelgren, M. (2016), “In need for better maintenance cost modelling to
support the partnership with manufacturing”, in Current Trends in Reliability, Availability,
Maintainability and Safety, Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering, Springer, Cham.
L€ofsten, H. (1999), “Management of industrial maintenance–economic evaluation of maintenance
policies”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 19 No. 7,
pp. 716-737.
Marais, K.B. and Saleh, J.H. (2009), “Beyond its cost, the value of maintenance: an analytical
framework for capturing its net present value”, Reliability Engineering and System Safety,
Vol. 94 No. 2, pp. 644-657.
McKinsey Global Institute (2016), The Age of Analytics: Competing in a Data-Driven World, executive
summary, McKinsey & Company, Brussels, available at: https://www.mckinsey.com/∼/media/
McKinsey/Business%20Functions/McKinsey%20Analytics/Our%20Insights/The%20age%20
of%20analytics%20Competing%20in%20a%20data%20driven%20world/MGI-The-Age-of-An
alytics-Executive-summary.ashx (accessed 9 September 2019).
Michael, G.J. and Millen, R.A. (1985), “Economic justification of modern computer-based factory Maintenance-
automation equipment: a status report”, Annals of Operations Research, Vol. 3 No. 2,
pp. 23-34. related
Monostori, L., Kadar, B., Bauernhansl, T., Kondoh, S., Kumara, S., Reinhart, G., Sauer, O., Schuh, G.,
investments in
Sihn, W. and Ueda, K. (2016), “Cyber-physical systems in manufacturing”, CIRP Annals - industry
Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 65 No. 2, pp. 621-641.
Narayanan, M. (1985), “Observability and the payback criterion”, Journal of Business, Vol. 58 No. 3,
pp. 309-323.
Ojanen, V., Hatinen, L., K€arri, T., K€assi, T. and Tuominen, M. (2012), “Flexible investment planning
and collaborative maintenance management”, in Asset Management, Springer, Dordrecht,
pp. 65-77.
Pike, R. and Neale, B. (2003), Corporate Finance and Investment: Decisions and Strategies, 4th ed.,
Prentice Hall, Harlow.
Roda, I. and Macchi, M. (2018), “A framework to embed Asset Management in production companies”,
Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers - Part O: Journal of Risk and Reliability,
Vol. 232 No. 4, pp. 368-378.
Salonen, A. and Deleryd, M. (2011), “Cost of poor maintenance: a concept for maintenance performance
improvement”, Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 63-73.
Sharma, A., Yadava, G.S. and Deshmukh, S.G. (2011), “A literature review and future perspectives on
maintenance optimization”, Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 17, pp. 5-25.
Swann, K. and O’ Keefe, W. (1990), “Advanced manufacturing technology: investment decision
process. Part I”, Management Decision, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 20-31.
Tam, A.S. and Price, J.W. (2008), “A maintenance prioritisation approach to maximise return on
investment subject to time and budget constraints”, Journal of Quality in Maintenance
Engineering, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 272-289.
Tan, K.H., Lim, C.P., Platts, K. and Koay, H.S. (2006), “An intelligent decision support system for
manufacturing technology investments”, International Journal of Production Economics,
Vol. 104 No. 1, pp. 179-190.
Waeyenbergh, G. and Pintelon, L. (2002), “A framework for maintenance concept development”,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 77 No. 3, pp. 299-313.
Xu, L.D., Xu, E.L. and Li, L. (2018), “Industry 4.0: state of the art and future trends”, International
Journal of Production Research, Vol. 56 No. 8, pp. 2941-2962.
Yin, R.K. (2017), Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods, Sage publications,
Thousands Oaks.
Yin, R.K. (2018), Case study research and applications: design and methods, Sixth edition, Sage
publications.
Ylip€a€a, T., Skoogh, A., Bokrantz, J. and Gopalakrishnan, M. (2017), “Identification of maintenance
improvement potential using OEE assessment”, International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 126-143.

About the authors

Camilla Lundgren is a PhD student at the Department of Industrial and Materials Science, Chalmers
University of Technology. Her research focuses on implementation of Smart Maintenance, including
aspects such as investments, strategy and leadership. She has industrial experience from working with
automatic cleaning systems in pulp and paper industry, and from work as a production and logistics
consultant at AFRY. Camilla Lundgren is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: camilla.
lundgren@chalmers.se
Jon Bokrantz, PhD, is a Researcher at the Department of Industrial and Materials Science, Chalmers
University of Technology. Jon has a background in Production Engineering and his research focuses on
maintenance in digitalized manufacturing. His email address is jon.bokrantz@chalmers.se.
JQME Anders Skoogh is Professor of Production Maintenance at Industrial and Materials Science,
Chalmers University of Technology. He is a research group leader for Production Service and
Maintenance Systems. Anders is also the director of Chalmers’ master’s program in Production
Engineering and board member of the Think-Tank Sustainability Circle. Before starting his research
career, he accumulated industrial experience from being a logistics developer at Volvo Cars. His email
address is anders.skoogh@chalmers.se.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com