See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/330464112

Spare parts’ criticality assessment and prioritization for enhancing

manufacturing systems’ availability and reliability

Article in Journal of Manufacturing Systems · January 2019

DOI: 10.1016/j.jmsy.2019.01.003

CITATIONS READS

30 12,534

2 authors:

Katarzyna Antosz R.M. Chandima Ratnayake

Rzeszów University of Technology University of Stavanger (UiS)
79 PUBLICATIONS 789 CITATIONS 235 PUBLICATIONS 1,822 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by R.M. Chandima Ratnayake on 26 February 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Manufacturing Systems 50 (2019) 212–225

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Manufacturing Systems

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

Spare parts’ criticality assessment and prioritization for enhancing T

manufacturing systems’ availability and reliability
Katarzyna Antosza, , R.M. Chandima Ratnayakeb
⁎

a
Rzeszow University of Technology, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Aeronautics, Department of Manufacturing and Production Engineering, Al. Powstancow
Warszawy 8, 35-959, Rzeszow, Poland
b
Department of Mechanical and Structural Engineering and Materials Science, University of Stavanger, PO. Box 8600 Forus, N-4036, Stavanger, Norway

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Manufacturing systems (MSs) have become more and more complex, due to global competition. Optimal spare
Manufacturing systems parts provisioning plays a critical role in sustaining an anticipated operational competitiveness level, via effi-
Availability cient and effective maintenance of machinery. The forecasting of intermittent demand for spare parts is a
Reliability challenge, as it is not always possible to avoid random unforeseen breakdowns, which reduce availability and
Spare parts
increase the unreliability of manufacturing systems. The aforementioned requires a systemic perspective, in
Maintenance
Prioritization
order to perform a criticality analysis and prioritization of the spare parts needed to increase a manufacturing
Empirical model system’s availability and reliability. This paper first demonstrates the development of an empirical model (EM),
Analytic hierarchy process using a case study MS. The EM enables a criticality analysis to be performed, considering the system perspective
of spare part management, by taking maintenance-related and logistics-related factors into account. After that,
the machineries are categorized into groups, considering the factors related to the maintenance, logistics and
criticality levels. The second part presents how to perform spare part prioritization within a selected group, via
an analytic hierarchy process (AHP), to minimize ad hoc suboptimal assessments, together with sensitivity
analyses. Finally, it presents the spare part prioritization and the subsequent sensitivity analysis results.

1. Introduction
It is important to maintain spare parts inventories for serving the
needs of the maintenance and replacement of operating machinery in
manufacturing systems (MSs) [1,2], in order to enhance the availability
of expensive and technologically advanced/complex systems [3]. Many
industries, such as manufacturing, oil and gas production, aerospace
and defense, transportation, telecommunications and information
technology, utilities and the supply of durable goods, rely on the ef-
fective management of spare parts [4]. Spare part management is a
significantly challenging task, particularly due to the fact that “The
parts can be expensive, their demand is highly erratic and intermittent,
yet their shortage costs can be very large” [5]. The aforementioned has
been further exacerbated by the high obsolescence risk, due to spare
parts’ specific functionalities. Hence, it is vital to find the right balance
between the cost of spare part acquisition, inventory holding, stock-out
and obsolescence costs, while focusing on minimizing downtime costs
(i.e. opportunity cost in the case of lost production, liability costs, and/
or loss of goodwill) [6,7].
The “management of spare parts differs from other manufacturing
inventories such as work-in process and finished products” [2]. There
are two main differences (i.e. in relation to the functionality and the
policy for managing the inventory) between these two types of in-
ventories [8]. In this context, the spare parts inventory levels are pri-
marily dependent on the ‘function’: how machineries are utilized and
how they are maintained [9], while the key decision variable (i.e. op-
timal stocking level) remains the same for spare parts, as well as for
work-in-progress and final finished-product inventories [2]. However,
the demand for spare parts is ‘lumpy’. This means that the demand for
spare part items is typically intermittent, with orders arriving spor-
adically, and the demand can also be highly variable [10]. What is
more, the demand only arises at system breakdowns. Hence, the in-
termittent, sporadic and highly variable nature of spare part demand
diminishes the use of forecasting techniques with the same quality,
which unable to estimate demand for the finished products [11].
Spare part assessment and control has acquired great interest in the
literature to date. The studies cover a wide range of relevant research
areas such as spare part inventory control, supply chain management,
maintenance, demand pattern, item value, system reliability and per-
formance, etc. For instance, [12] demonstrated the management of

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: katarzyna.antosz@prz.edu.pl (K. Antosz), chandima.ratnayake@uis.no (R.M.C. Ratnayake).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2019.01.003
Received 12 October 2018; Received in revised form 21 December 2018; Accepted 10 January 2019
Available online 17 January 2019
0278-6125/ © 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of The Society of Manufacturing Engineers.
K. Antosz, R.M.C. Ratnayake
spare parts in order to reduce the holding costs, focusing on the spare
part distributors’ point of view, by adopting a probabilistic approach.
Based on real-life spare part networks, the work of [13] introduced a
spare part inventory model with lateral transhipment. Ref [14].’s work
discussed how to handle complex circumstances in relation to main-
tenance processes, focusing on the spare parts logistics. Durán, Macchi
et al. [15] adopted a simulation for testing a specific spare part in-
ventory policy that focuses on a continuous review system in order to
assess the effects on operational performance of an industrial commi-
nution plant on its total cost of ownership. Hellingrath, Pereira et al.
[16] demonstrated how to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of
managing the spare part supply chains associated with complex man-
ufacturing systems. Behfard, van der Heijden et al. [17] developed a
heuristic method to investigate the near-optimal last time buy quantity
in the presence of an imperfect repair option for failed spare parts
which are returned from the field. The study in [18] demonstrated the
use of the Bayesian model as a decision support tool for the choice of a
policy and procurement planning of spare parts, focusing on the
maintenance of machinery in operational conditions and avoiding
stock-outs. Molenaers et al. [19] showed a criticality classification of
spare parts, focusing on stock-out effects, item value and demand pat-
tern. However, none of these authors managed to take into account the
resultant influence of spare part demand on different machinery in
relation to: the physical model (design, technology, etc.); the logistic
model (internal organization, support processes, resources, etc.); the
behavioral model (robustness, aging, obsolescence, etc.); and the eco-
nomic model (cost reduction, optimization of resources, etc.).
Kennedy et al. [8] provided a classification process to categorize the
spare parts into useful classes, based on one or more relevant attributes.
ABC analysis has widely/traditionally been employed as a classification
method in industrial organizations to determine the service requirements
of spare parts, in which the items are ranked in terms of a single cri-
terion, such as a demand value or a consumption pattern. For instance,
Syntetos et al. [20] demonstrated the use of ABC analysis in order to
characterize spare parts, based on a demand value for an electronics
manufacturer. ABC analysis is not considered the most suitable method,
as it is based on one parameter, while the assortment of industrial spare
parts is significantly heterogeneous [21–23]. Hence, the traditional ABC
classification was extended [e.g. weighted linear optimization, Artificial
Neural Networks (ANN), etc.] to a multi-criteria ABC analysis, including
other parameters like unit cost, critical factor and lead-time, by different
researchers [21,22,24–26]. However, there are inherent drawbacks
present in the multi-criteria classification models. For instance, ANN
models are not suitable for incorporating qualitative parameters,
whereas weighted linear models are not suitable for incorporating cate-
gorical measurements. Moreover, none of them is capable of entirely
replacing professional judgments [22]. In this context, the multi-criteria
analysis approach, AHP, enables both qualitative and quantitative cri-
teria to be considered in a classification/prioritization scheme, at the
same time enabling the assignment of weights to the different parameters
[27–29]. For instance, Gajpal et al. [30] and Braglia et al. [31] demon-
strated the use of the AHP approach in criticality-based spare part clas-
sification. However, the AHP approach has inherent limitations, as it
undergoes a high level of subjectivity in performing pairwise compar-
isons. Moreover, the case study performed by Botter and Fortuin [32]
(i.e. to distinguish important spare parts from others, based on several
criteria) revealed that the AHP approach is too theoretical and not ac-
ceptable by the management. Hence, it was modified to a simplified
spare part functionality-based VED (Vital, Essential, Desirable) approach.
It is possible to classify the spare parts from a maintenance view-
point, using classification criteria such as: machine failure, lead times,
supplier’s reliability and item criticality. In this context, the criticality
of a spare part is expressed as “the impact a shortage can have on
production, safety and environment” [19]. The aspects related to cri-
ticality are broadly divided into two categories: process criticality and
control criticality [33,34]. Fig. 1 illustrates that process criticality is
213
Journal of Manufacturing Systems 50 (2019) 212–225
Fig. 1. Spare part criticality categories [19].
associated with the consequences of a failure or shortage of an item/a
spare part, whereas control criticality is associated with the possibility
of controlling the availability of a spare part [19].
Hence, it is evident that the concept of criticality depends on a
number of factors, making the criticality assessment significantly dif-
ficult in a formal and uniform way. However, approaches for the ca-
tegorization of spare parts, by assigning appropriate criticality levels,
were demonstrated in the standards and research studies [5,9]. Many
models have been developed, which focus on: What to stock? Where to
stock? How much to stock? However, due to the inherent variable
nature of spare parts, it is vital to have an overall systemic perspective
for spare part assessment and control, based on an item’s criticality and
a subsequent prioritization analysis. Hence, it is necessary to investigate
practical and realistic approaches, such as those presented by Mole-
naers et al. [19], Braglia et al. [31], Syntetos et al. [20], Wang et al.
[35] and Chen et al. [36], rather than re-inventing approaches which
are purely theoretical in nature.
Such models were developed in works [37–39]. In [37], condition-
based spares’ ordering for critical components is proposed. In this
paper, the ordering decision depends on the remaining useful life (RUL)
estimation, obtained through the assessment of component age and
condition indicators (covariates), which are indicative of the state of
health of the component, at every inspection time. The authors consider
a random lead time for spares and a single-component, single-spare
configuration, which is not uncommon for very expensive and highly
critical equipment. In [38], the authors focus on condition managed
critical spares (CMCS): namely, spares which are expensive, highly re-
liable, with higher lead times, and not available in store. The aim of the
paper is to orient the decision time for CMCS ordering or to just con-
tinue the production. Ref [39]. presents an inventory pooling model for
spare units of critical systems that serve multi-companies. Companies
located in the same geographical area can benefit from a coalition to
share the storage cost of such spare units, which may be stored as one
unit at only one company's location. In the presented model, the storage
cost, replacement costs and downtime cost are amalgamated into a
unified cost function, giving the expected cost per company per unit
time as our objective function. The optimal solution, with regard to
these two decision variables under a certain cost structure, is presented,
and a simulation method verifies the correctness of the model. A series
of sensitivity analyses are also conducted to show which variable has
the most influence on the expected cost. The aforementioned models
can be fulfilled by the development of an empirical model, based on a
criticality analysis and the subsequent prioritization practice, using a
multi-criteria analysis that enables easy and uniform use as an assess-
ment and control tool for reinforcing the practitioners’ decision-making
process. This enhances the transparency and minimizes the ad hoc
decision making, resulting in less variability in the overall performance.
Additionally, the spare part criticality assessment will help to increase
K. Antosz, R.M.C. Ratnayake
the machine’s system availability and reliability. Therefore, it is vital to
develop system perspective criticality and multi-criteria [e.g. the ana-
lytic hierarchy process (AHP)] analysis approaches for spare part in-
ventory assessments and subsequent prioritizations.
This work starts by developing an empirical model to perform a cri-
ticality analysis, considering the system perspective of spare part man-
agement, by taking maintenance-related (i.e. machine categories, spare
part replacement time, complexity of the replacement process, failure
type, failure frequency and employee qualification) and logistics-related
(i.e. part cost, lead time, storage, and number of potential suppliers)
factors into account. Then, the machinery is categorized into groups,
considering factors related to the maintenance, logistics and criticality
levels. Finally, it demonstrates how to perform spare part prioritization
within a selected group (i.e. using AHP) in order to minimize the ad hoc
suboptimal assessments and associated sensitivity analysis.
2. Influence of spare part prioritization on availability and
reliability of the machines’ system
Availability of the machines’ system means the system's ability to
relate the required functions in specific conditions, a specific moment
or a specific time interval, under the assumption that external condi-
tions are provided. We distinguish two types of accessibility: Ao (op-
erational availability) and Ai (inherent availability). Ao is a parameter
describing the relation between uptime and downtime. In the design
process, Ai is determined. Ai takes into account downtime and repair
time, ignoring the delay of preventive actions, administration and lo-
gistics. Ao is considered the system`s reliability, maintainability, sup-
portability and testability. Ao is a parameter describing the readiness
capability and support [40]. Mathematically, Ao and Ai are expressed
by Eqs. (1) and (2).
MTBF
Ao =
MTBF + MTTR + MLDT (1)
MTBF
Ai =
(2)
MTBF + MTTR
where:
MTBF – Mean Time Between Failures,
MTTR – Mean Time to Repair,
MLDT – Mean Logistic Delay Time.
The MTBF indicator measures the reliability of the system, i.e. its
ability to perform the required function under certain conditions for a
given period of time [41]. This is an indicator often expressed in hours
as the average time interval that elapses before the item fails and re-
quires servicing, for repairable systems. MTBF is defined by the mean of
the arithmetic value of the reliability function R(t), which can be ex-
pressed as the expected value of the density function ƒ(t) time to failure
(Eq. (3)) [42].
MTBF =
0
R (t ) dt =
0
tf (t ) dt (3)
In practice, MTBF is calculated according to Eq. (4):
(Start of Downtime Start of Uptime )
MTBF =
Number of failures (4)
MTBF can also be useful in determining the frequency of controls or
preventive replacements. For unrecoverable systems, it is recommended
to use the mean time to failure (MTTF) instead of MTBF, because MTBF is
the time between failures in a system that can be repaired [41]. The
related MTBF indicator is the average repair time (MTTR), which is the
average time interval (usually expressed in hours) needed to repair the
damaged item. Mathematically, this is the total repair time of a break-
down divided by the total number of corrective maintenance actions in
214
Journal of Manufacturing Systems 50 (2019) 212–225
the event of a failure in a given time period (Eq. (5)) [43].
Total maintenance time (TMT )
MTTR =
Number of repairs (5)
The Mean Time to Repair (MTTR) is the average time needed to solve
the problem and repair the damaged equipment and restore it to normal
working conditions. Maintenance time (MT) is defined as the time from
the beginning of the event until the system is restored to production. MT
includes notification time, waiting time for service, diagnostic time, re-
pair time, calibration, test time, return to production, etc. The average
repair time allows how an organization can respond to a problem and
eliminate it to be assessed. MTTR provides a wealth of information that
can help reliability engineers make informed decisions such as repair or
replacement, rental, optimization of maintenance schedules, storage of
on-site spare parts or change of spare part management strategy. This is
especially important in keeping systems in operation for a long time. The
longer the MTTR, the worse the system works. If the failure elimination
time is extended, the system will have less availability.
The Mean Logistic Delay Time (MLDT) refers to delays of the sup-
port resources and the administrative delay time of the equipment.
MLDT is a main parameter influencing Ao, describing the support re-
source, including spare part, support equipment, technical data and
worker. After transforming Eq. (1), MLDT is expressed as Eq. (6):
MTBF
MLDT = MTBF MTTR
Ao (6)
Fig. 2 presents selected elements that affect the value of the MLDT
indicator. Delays are mainly related to the flow of information and the
supply of resources such as: spare parts, equipment, tools and em-
ployees [40].
Analyzing Eqs. (1)–(4), it can be observed that increasing the value
of the MLDT indicator reduces Ao and MTBF and thus reduces the re-
liability of the system (Table 1).
In view of the above, it is important to take actions aimed at re-
ducing the MLDT value. Therefore, in this article, actions aimed at re-
ducing the MLDT value in the area related to the supply of spare parts
have been taken. Proposed spare part criticality assessment metho-
dology will help increase the availability of spare parts and decrease the
MLDT time, which, finally, will increase the machines’ system avail-
ability and reliability.
3. Methodology
3.1. Problem description
It is a challenge to determine the spare part inventory levels using
machinery criticality, as some machines in a plant are quite critical, while
others are almost redundant. In addition, there is a possibility that similar
parts are installed in a machine which has different criticality levels in
terms of maintenance and logistics. In this context, the machinery criti-
cality is assessed with regard to its importance in sustaining production in
a safe and efficient way without endangering the society and environ-
ment. The machinery’s criticality is also a function of its intended pur-
pose, rather than of itself (e.g. a hydraulic pump may, in one case, be
critical and, in another, auxiliary). Hence, it is necessary to assess the
spare parts’ criticality in a system perspective with regard to process and
control criticalities. Furthermore, it is important to have formal ap-
proaches for making a criticality analysis and subsequent prioritization, in
order to minimize ad hoc assessments. The aforementioned minimizes ad
hoc decisions that shall be made by experts and lead to suboptimal con-
clusions, based on the existing data and information, as well as on the
particular individual’s knowledge, experience, intuition or intentions.
3.2. Criticality assessment and prioritization approach
The methodology used in this work is illustrated in Fig. 3.
K. Antosz, R.M.C. Ratnayake Journal of Manufacturing Systems 50 (2019) 212–225

Fig. 2. MLDT – influencing factors [40].

Table 1
The impact of MLDT on system availability and reliability.
Indicator System availability System reliability

MLDT Increase (↑) Decrease (↓) Decrease (↓)

Decrease (↓) Increase (↑) Increase (↑)

Step I: Empirical spare parts’ classification model

The main goal of this step is the identification of the spare parts’
criticality. This work step consists of the following stages (refer to
Fig. 3):

• identification of the spare parts’ criticality assessment criteria, based

on the maintenance requirements,
• identification of the spare parts’ criticality assessment criteria, based
on the logistic requirements,
• assignment of points for each criterion, based on the maintenance
requirements,
• assignment of points for each criterion, based on the logistic re-
quirements,
• the spare parts’ assessment, according to the maintenance criteria
(i.e. calculation of a maintenance category – PC indicator),
m

• the spare parts’ assessment, according to the maintenance criteria

(i.e. calculation of a maintenance category – PC indicator),
l

• assignment of the spare parts to the final category,

• identification of spare parts’ criticality.
Based on the proposed empirical model, spare parts were evaluated
in relation to two main criteria: maintenance and logistics [44]. Within
the requirements of a maintenance discipline, the following criteria are
proposed: machine category (Cm), spare part replacement time (Rt),
complexity of the replacement process (CoR), failure type (Ft) and fre-
quency (Ff), qualifications required for an employee to replace a spare
part (Eq). The spare parts’ classification criteria specify different point Fig. 3. Overall criticality assessment and prioritization approach.
values for every alternative. Table 2 illustrates the possible alternatives,
with descriptions and values of points for each criterion in the main- points for each criterion in the logistics discipline: the cost of spare
tenance discipline. The established ranges of points for criteria are a parts, spare part lead time, storage, the number of potential suppliers.
proposal. The values can be adjusted according to the needs and re- The established ranges of points for the criteria are a proposal. The
quirements of the company. values can be adjusted according to the needs and requirements of the
Table 3 presents possible alternatives, descriptions and values of

215
 Table 2
Maintenance discipline – the proposed criteria.
Area Criterion Criterion description Criterion characteristics Points

Maintenance Cm This criterion shows for which machine category the spare parts are mainly used. Machine category A means that this
machine is very important for the production process performance (i.e. bottlenecks). The highest points are assigned to the
spare part that is mainly used for very important machines (i.e. A) and vice versa.
A 4
B 3
C 2
D 1
K. Antosz, R.M.C. Ratnayake

Rt This criterion defines the expected time needed for the replacement of the spare part in case of its failure. The replacement Up to 2 hrs. 1
time influences the total time for the elimination of the machine failure. The highest points are assigned to the spare part that 2-8 hrs. 2
has the longest replacement time (i.e. over 8 hrs) and vice versa. Over 8 hrs. 3
Co R This criterion shows how difficult/complex the replacement process of a spare part is and that there is a need to have special Low – no special devices and tools are required, we do not need to 1
devices and tools in the replacement process. The complexity of the replacement process will also have an influence on the disassemble additional parts
total failure elimination time and, finally, on the criticality of the spare parts. The highest points are assigned to spare parts Medium – particular devices and tools are required, only some additional 2
with high levels of complexity and the lowest points are assigned to the least complex spare parts. parts should be disassembled
High – special devices and tools are required; many additional parts should 3
be disassembled
Ft This criterion determines the type of failure: accidental or chronic. Parts whose failures are chronic are less important Accidental 2
because it is easier to foresee the failure. The part whose failure type is accidental is allocated the highest points the points Chronic 1
are assigned to the part whose failure type is chronic.
Ff This criterion shows the frequency level of the spare part’s failure. For determining the spare part’s criticality, the failure rate Up to 8 per year 1
is important. If it is very high, the spare parts are more important. Spare parts whose failure frequency is very high (i.e. over 8-16 per year 2
16 per year) have the highest points. Over 16 per year 3
Eq This criterion determines the level of qualifications, which an employee needs for the spare part’s replacement process. The Low – during the replacement process, some basic experience is required 1
highest points are assigned to the spare part that has to be outsourced and the lowest points are assigned to the spare part Medium – during the replacement process, an employee needs special 2
that does not need to be outsourced. permissions
Outsourcing (an outside company) is required 3

216
Table 3
Logistics discipline – the proposed criteria.
Area Criterion Criterion description Criterion characteristics Points

Logistics Part cost This criterion shows the cost in a spare part purchasing process. This will help to determine the possibility of a Low 1
Cp purchasing and warehousing process. The company sometimes does not wish to buy a critical part because the Medium 2
cost is very high. At the same time, there are many less important spare parts in the storage, which are not High 3
needed and the sum cost is higher than that of the critical spare part which is important.
The highest points are assigned to the spare part that has the highest cost (i.e. over 7 days) and the lowest
points are assigned to the spare part with the lowest cost.
Lead time Lt This criterion shows how much time is needed for a spare part purchasing process. The highest points are Short – up to 48 hrs 1
assigned to the spare part that has the longest lead time (i.e. over 7 days) and the lowest points are assigned to Medium – from 48 hrs-7 days 2
the spare part with the shortest lead time. Long – over 7 days 3
Storage The criterion shows whether the spare part requires any special conditions and additional space in the No special conditions are required in the storage (e.g. storage surface, humidity, temperature), 1
Ps storage. The highest points are assigned to the spare part that requires special conditions and additional space the spare parts do not need much space in the storage
and lead time and the lowest points are assigned to the spare part that does not requires special conditions Particular conditions are required in the storage (e.g. storage surface, humidity, temperature), 2
and additional space and lead time. the spare parts need more space in the storage
Some special conditions are required in the storage (e.g. storage surface, humidity, temperature), 3
the spare parts need additional/much space in the storage
Number of This criterion shows how many suppliers are available on the market. This information is very important for Only 1 3
potential spare part criticality. Moreover, in many cases, the number of suppliers affects the spare part’s lead time. The 1-4 2
suppliers highest points are assigned to the spare part that has the fewest suppliers (i.e. only 1) and the lowest points >4 1
Sn are assigned to the spare part with the highest numbers of suppliers.
Journal of Manufacturing Systems 50 (2019) 212–225
K. Antosz, R.M.C. Ratnayake
company.
Evaluated spare parts are assigned to the appropriate spare part
category in two analyzed areas: maintenance and logistics. The as-
signment of the spare parts to the appropriate category is done ac-
cording to the values of PCm and PCl indicators.
Eqs. (7) and (8) were established to calculate the values of PCm and
PCl indicators:
PCm = w1Cm+w2Rt+w3CoR + w4Ft+w5Ff+w6Eq
PCl = w1Cp+w2Lt+w3Ps+w4Sn
The values of indicators, Cm, Rt, CoR, Ft, Ff, Eq, Cp, Lt, Ps, Sn, should be
established according to the limitations assumed in Tables 1 and 2.
Nevertheless, the values’ importance wi can be assumed by companies,
according to their requirements. The importance values’ sum wi for both
PCm and PCl should equal 1. The spare part category should be de-
termined according to the values of parameters PCm and PCl (Table 4).
The maintenance and logistics are two areas in which the spare part
categories will be identified. The possible spare part categories have
been developed, based on the authors’ experience and the requirements
of the analyzed company (Table 4).
When the spare parts category for the part (in two areas: main-
tenance and logistic) is assigned, we can identify the final category for
the spare parts. Based on the final spare parts category the strategy for
this part as well as the recommended actions and criticality level will be
determined (Table 5).
Table 5 was developed on the basis of the authors’ and supervisors’
experience from the case study company and taking into account the
good practices from lean manufacturing and maintenance management.
If the part has a different category in these two proposed areas, the
maintenance area is more important than the logistics, from the proper
realization of the maintenance management point of view, so the cri-
ticality level of spare parts depends mainly on the maintenance area.
This area should be taken into consideration first. For all spare parts
with A category in maintenance, regardless of the category in the lo-
gistics area, criticality was assumed to be H. For spare parts with B
category in maintenance, regardless of the category in the logistic areas,
criticality is M and so on.
Step II: AHP analysis for prioritization
In the AHP approach, expert judgments provide the necessary in-
formation for the ranking of criteria. Fig. 4 illustrates the model of a
hierarchical structure developed for the prioritization of spare parts
with high criticality.
In this context, both qualitative and quantitative criteria are com-
pared using informed judgments [with the help of a particular dis-
cipline expert(s)] to derive weights and priorities [45,46]. Using the
scale illustrated in Table 6, pairwise comparison matrices are developed
for the analysis [47].
The evaluations are conducted by experts, using a questionnaire
similar to the sample (i.e. a part of the questionnaire) given in Fig. 5.
The judgment value is a full number if the comparison is regarded as
Table 4
Spare part categories.
Part category Value of A Critical part PCm ≥2.5, PCl ≥2.5
PCm and PCl indicators
Maintenance Availability is required immediately, a failure rate is
very high, employees need special skills, or
outsourcing is required
Logistics Availability is required immediately, lead time is
very long, one supplier is available, cost is very high,
parts require special conditions and space in the
storage
Journal of Manufacturing Systems 50 (2019) 212–225
favorable and a fraction if the comparison is regarded as less favorable.
When the evaluations are made at different levels along the hierarchy,
and if no consensus is reached, then a geometric means (w̄ ) is used to
average the judgments (i.e. weights, wi). The geometric means is given
by Eq. (9):
n
w¯ = ( wi )1/ n (9)
i=1
(7)
It is important to provide an introduction (e.g. workshop, examples)
(8) regarding the evaluation approach prior to the distribution of the
questionnaire, in order to familiarize an evaluation team with the AHP.
In addition, an evaluation team shall consist of experienced experts
from different fields (e.g. lead engineer, senior engineer mechanical/
structural, specialists in engineering control, senior engineer in design,
senior engineer in testing, etc.) [27,28]. The AHP approach provides
the possibility to carry out interviews and analysis independently for
different layers, based on different expertise. Hence, it is possible, for
instance, to address reliability, legislative requirements, technical per-
formance, cost, etc., based on a particular expert’s relevance. The
aforementioned enables a multi-criteria analysis to be performed in an
effective and efficient manner. In this work, the authors used the re-
lative importance of two factors for making comparisons, using the
possibilities provided by the ExpertChoice software.
It is necessary to establish priorities. After modelling, spare parts
need to be prioritized in a hierarchy. Each node is evaluated against
each of its peers in relation to its parent node. These evaluations are
referred to as “pairwise comparisons”. The pairwise comparisons of the
elements at each level of the spare part prioritization hierarchical
model are made in terms of either: Importance – when comparing goals,
criteria, sub-criteria or alternatives in relation to their relative im-
portance; Preference – when comparing the preference alternatives in
relation to goals, criteria, sub-criteria; Likelihood ‒ when comparing
uncertain events or scenarios in relation to the probability of their oc-
currence [47]. When comparing a pair of factors (i.e. criteria, sub-cri-
teria or alternatives), a ratio of the relative importance, preference, or
likelihood of the factors is established [48]. In the pairwise comparison
process, it is also possible to take the probability and consequence of a
possible event (i.e. criticality aspect) into the evaluation.
The numerical values (i.e. weights) that represent the judgments of
the comparisons are arranged in a matrix for the further calculations.
The weights in the pairwise comparison matrices (PCMs) are composed
using the numerical values in Table 6, while comparing all elements at
each level of the spare part prioritization hierarchical model. The PCM
“A_ ” for comparing “n” elements is given by:
1
A = [aij ] where, aji =
_ , aii = 1, (1 i n) and (1 j n
aij (10)
The PCM (i.e. A
_ ) has a form as follows:
B Needed part 1.5 ≤ PCm < 2.5, 1.5 ≤ PCl < 2.5 C Other parts, not classified in
categories A or B
PCm < 1.5, PCl < 1.5
Availability is required in the shortest possible time, a Short purchasing time, failure rate
failure rate is on the medium level, employees need is on the low level, employees do
special skills, or outsourcing is required not require any special skills
Availability is required in the shortest possible time, Short purchasing time – lead time is
lead time is on the medium level, more than one short, there are many suppliers, cost
supplier is available, cost is on the medium level, part is on the low level
does not require special conditions and space in the
storage
217
K. Antosz, R.M.C. Ratnayake Journal of Manufacturing Systems 50 (2019) 212–225

Table 5
The recommended actions and strategy for final spare parts category.
Maintenance Logistics Spare parts Criticality level Strategy Recommended actions
category

A A AA Availability in the storage is required. Availability and part quality are under special
A B AB control, Kanban is required.
A C AC
B A BA
B B BB Availability in the storage is recommended dependent on provide Availability and part quality are under control,
B C BC financial and storage possibilities of the company. Kanban is recommended.
C B CB

C A CA Availability in the storage is not required – the company makes the decision, purchase on demand.

_
Aw_ = nw
_ (12)

The problem of solving Eq. (12) for a nonzero solution is an ei-

genvalue problem, which is given by:
Aw
_ _ = w
_ (13)

As matrix A_ has a special form (i.e. each row is a constant multiple

of the first row), the rank of the matrix is one, and, except for one
eigenvalue, all the other eigenvalues of matrix A_ are zero. However, as
the sum of the eigenvalues of a positive matrix is equal to the trace of
the matrix, the nonzero eigenvalue has a value of n (i.e. the size of the
matrix). This is referred to as max and used for a consistency analysis.
The consistency analysis is carried out in order to determine the
consistency of experts’ judgments. For instance, if matrix w _ is not
known, only the estimates of aij s in matrix A
_ are known, and no strong
consistency property (i.e. small errors and inconsistencies in judg-
ments) exists, then the eigenvalue problem for the inconsistent case is:
Aw
_ _ = max w
_ (14)

where max n and other s ˜0 . The estimates of weights for the ac-
Fig. 4. Hierarchical structure for prioritization (G: goal; Ci = ith criteria; SCi = tivities are calculated by normalizing the eigenvector corresponding to
ith sub-criteria; Ai = ith alternative). the largest eigenvalue in Eq. (14). The normalization is performed by
summing each column and then dividing each column entry by its re-
w1 w1 w1 w1 spective column sum. The normalization process is given by:
w1 w2 w3 wn
w2 w2 w2 w2 aij
w1 w2 w3 wn a, = [aij ] whereaij = n for (1 i n) and (1 j n
_A = w3
w1
w3
w2
w3
w3
w3
wn
a
k = 1 ik (15)
.

wn wn wn wn Then, the average value in each row of the normalized matrix is

w1 w2 w3 wn (11)
calculated to obtain the relative weights or eigenvector, which is de-
Once the weights of the PCM have been established, then the matrix termined by:
product of matrix A_ with vector w
_ = [ w1 w2 w3 wn ] enables the n
aija
calculation of the weights of w
_: W
_ = [wk ] wherewk = for (1 i n), (1 j n) and (1 k n
i=1
n
w1 w1 w1 w1
w1 w2 w3 wn
w1 nw1 (16)
w2 w2 w2 w2
w1 w2 w3 wn w2 nw2
w3 w3 w3 w3 * w3 = nw3 The notion here is that the closer the max is to n, the more con-
w1 w2 w3 wn
sistent the judgments are. Hence, it is possible to use the difference
wn wn wn wn
wn nwn ( max n ) as a measure of inconsistency (i.e. the perfect consistency
w1 w2 w3
refers to the zero difference). Hence, the consistency index (CI) is
wn

Table 6
Saaty’s scale for judgments.
Intensity Definition Explanation
of importance

1 Equal importance Two factors contribute equally to the objective

3 Slightly more important Experience and judgment slightly favor one over another
5 Much more important Experience and judgment strongly favor one over another
7 Very much more important Experience and judgment very strongly favor one over another
9 Definitely more important The evidence favoring one over another is of the highest possible validity
2,4,6,8 Intermediate values When a compromise is needed

218
K. Antosz, R.M.C. Ratnayake Journal of Manufacturing Systems 50 (2019) 212–225

Fig. 5. Excerpted sample questions of the AHP interviews.

defined (see [49]) as Eq. (17), as it represents the average of the re-
maining eigenvalues:
( max n)
CI =
(n 1)
In order to derive a meaningful interpretation of the CI, random
pairwise comparisons were simulated at the inception of the AHP for
different sizes of matrices. The calculations were performed for calcu-
lating CIs and arriving at an average CI for random judgments for each
size of the matrix [i.e. referred to as a random consistency index (RCI)].
The size of the matrix vs. RCI is illustrated in Table 7 [49].
Hence, the consistency ratio (CR) is defined as the ratio of the CI for
a particular set of judgments to the average CI (or RCI) for random
comparisons for a matrix of the same size [see Eq. (18)].
CI
CR =
RCI
where: if CR < 0.1 (or 10%) , then the judgments are considered to be
consistent.
4. Application of the methodology to a manufacturing company
4.1. Empirical model based on criticality analysis and results
The main goal of this step was gathering the information about the
correctness of the model and analyses of the received results.
This step consists of the following stages:
• select a random sample (e.g. 10% spare parts in this study) of spare
parts from the spare part list that have already been identified as the
most critical (i.e. without performing a formal analysis);
• use the empirical model and assess the level of the spare parts’
criticality,
• prioritize the spare parts within an identified criticality class (i.e. L,
M, H), based on the number of items in each category;
• investigate the criticality level within each class, based on the
maintenance and logistics criteria for making sub-groups.
The case study manufacturing company produces parts for the au-
tomotive industry. This company uses the corrective maintenance for
its machines. It does not have a specific system for spare part evalua-
tion. It buys spare parts when they are needed – especially when
Table 7
Size of the matrix vs. RCI.
Size of the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
matrix
failures occur in the machines. This causes a big problem for the con-
tinuity of production, particularly when the spare part is mainly used in
a very important machine (i.e. bottleneck) with a very long lead time.
For the model evaluation, 24 parts were chosen randomly (i.e. 10%
(17)
of the spare parts from the spare part list that have already been
identified as the most critical without performing a formal analysis).
These were spare parts such as: timing belts, filament filters, actuators,
solenoid valves, transistors and others. They were evaluated according
to the proposed empirical criteria (Tables 2 and 3).
For the analysis, the experts from the maintenance department of
the company set the wi importance values. Eqs. (19) and (20) show the
standard importance values for the maintenance and logistics areas in
the case manufacturing company.
PCm = 0.3Cm+0.2Rt+0.1CoR+0.1Ft+0.2Ff+0.1Eq (19)
PCl = 0.2Cp+0.3Lt+0.1Ps+0.4Sn (20)
(18)
Table 8 presents the number of spare parts that have been classified
into each criticality level using the proposed model. Detailed calcula-
tions for Table 8 are presented in Appendix A.
The chosen parts were mostly identified in the company as critical
spare parts. The company accepted and confirmed that the obtained
results are proper. Table 8 shows that only 2 out of the analyzed spare
parts are critical, and a significantly large number of spare parts were
categorized as criticality level M (19 spare parts). However, if there are
spare parts (e.g. criticality levels H, L), then it is not necessary to make
such a prioritization in the case of spare parts with criticality H it is
obligatory to have them in storage. When it comes to spare parts with
criticality L, the company can decide whether they want to have them
in storage or not – it mainly depends on the company.
It is possible to prioritize the spare parts with ‘M’ criticality. This
prioritizing of the parts within each type is done in order to deploy
maintenance activities effectively. Therefore, it is necessary to improve
the methodology to further prioritize the spare parts in criticality M and
to increase the efficiency of maintenance management activities.
Hence, criticality level M (i.e.19 spare parts) was analyzed. Table 9
shows the results. Within M criticality, we distinguish two groups of
parts: with criticality BB and BC.
In this paper, the spare parts with criticality BB were chosen for
Table 8
The number of spare parts in each criticality level according to the proposed
model.
Criticality level

RCI 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.90 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45 1.49 Number of spare parts 2 19 3

219
K. Antosz, R.M.C. Ratnayake Journal of Manufacturing Systems 50 (2019) 212–225

Table 9 and two sub-criteria. However, depending on a particular case, the

The number of spare parts in each category for M criticality. number of criteria, sub-criteria and alternatives can change. Fig. 6 il-
Criticality level Spare parts category lustrates a generic hierarchical structure that was established for per-
(M) forming the spare part prioritization in the case study manufacturing
BB BC company.
Number of spare parts 8 11
4.2.2. Data collection: pairwise comparisons for spare part prioritization
Using Saaty’s scale (refer to Table 3), pairwise comparisons were
made at different levels of the hierarchy (refer to Fig. 5).
Pairwise comparison of spare parts in relation to a goal and criteria
(i.e. logistics and maintenance) [CR = 0]:
Goal L M
L 1 1/7
M 7 1
Pairwise comparison of spare parts in relation to criteria and sub-
criteria (i.e. logistics vs. sub-criteria) [CR = 0.23]:
Logistics Cp LT S NoS
PC 1 1/5 7 1/5
LT 5 1 9 1/5
S 1/7 1/9 1 1/5
NoS 5 5 5 1
Pairwise comparison of spare parts in relation to criteria and sub-
criteria (i.e. maintenance vs. sub-criteria) [CR = 0.15]:
Fig. 6. A hierarchical structure for spare part prioritization.
Maintenance MC RT CoR FT FF EQ LT
MC 1 1/3 7 5 5 5 3
further analysis because this criticality is more important than BC cri- RT 3 1 5 5 7 3 3
ticality. The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) was used to investigate CoR 1/7 1/5 1 1 1/3 1/3 1/7
how the spare parts shall be prioritized within a certain spare part FT 1/5 1/5 1 1 5 1/5 1/5
category. FF 1/5 1/7 3 1/5 1 1/3 1/5
EQ 1/5 1/3 3 5 3 1 1/5
4.2. AHP-related analysis and results LT 1/3 1/3 7 5 5 5 1

This work step consists of the following stages:
• develop a hierarchical structure for the spare part prioritization,
• use Saaty’s scale and develop the pairwise comparison matrices,
• perform the AHP analysis and calculate priority weights,
• perform the sensitivity analysis and reflect on the results.
4.2.1. A hierarchical structure for spare part prioritization
It is possible to prioritize spare parts based on different sets of cri-
teria (i.e. in relation to logistics and maintenance) and sub-criteria (i.e.
logistics: part cost, lead time, storage and the number of potential
suppliers; and maintenance: machine category, spare parts replacement
time, complexity of a replacement process, failure type, failure fre-
quency and employee qualifications and, additionally, the lead time).
For instance, in the current spare part prioritization case study, there
are eight alternatives: SP1, SP2… SP8 (see Fig. 6). It is necessary to
perform the prioritization of these eight alternatives (i.e. spare parts
with high criticality) in this illustrative case in relation to six criteria
The spare part assessment results that were obtained based on the
empirical spare part classification model (see Table 9) were applied to
perform the AHP-related pairwise comparisons (i.e. to perform further
prioritization) using Saaty’s scale. The part cost (Cp) criterion was
chosen to demonstrate the pairwise comparisons between the spare
parts. For instance, we can consider the comparison of spare parts SP2
to SP5 in relation to the Cp criterion. Based on the empirical modeling-
related analysis (see Table 10), the Cp criterion received 3 points (i.e.
maximum) for SP2 and 1 point (i.e. low) for SP5. Hence, during the
pairwise comparison, it was revealed that SP2 is of ‘absolutely more
importance’ compared to SP5. The relevant Saaty’s scale amounts to 9
(see Cp matrix). On the contrary, during the pairwise comparison be-
tween SP7 and SP6 in relation to Cp criterion, it was revealed that SP7 is
of ‘much more importance’, compared to SP1, and the relevant Saaty’s
scale amounts to 5 (see Cp matrix). The aforementioned is established
on the fact that, based on the empirical modeling-related analysis (see
Table 10), Cp criterion received 3 points (i.e. maximum) for SP7 and 2
points (i.e. moderate) for SP6. This demonstrates that SP7 is just ‘much
more important’ than SP6. Similar arguments and the procedure were

Table 10
The results of the spare part assessment – criticality BB.
No. Spare part Cm Rt Co R Ft Ff Eq Cp Lt Ps Sn Spare part Spare part
category criticality

SP1 4 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 BB M
SP2 4 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 3 BB M
SP3 4 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 BB M
SP4 4 2 3 1 1 2 3 1 2 3 BB M
SP5 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 3 BB M
SP6 4 2 3 1 1 2 2 1 2 3 BB M
SP7 4 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 2 3 BB M
SP8 4 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 2 BB M

220
K. Antosz, R.M.C. Ratnayake Journal of Manufacturing Systems 50 (2019) 212–225

used to make pairwise comparisons between spare parts. 4.2.3. AHP analysis results and discussion
This methodology was used to perform pairwise comparisons for all In Fig. 7, the hierarchical structure for the prioritization of spare
spare parts in each criterion. The matrices were developed as follows: parts and the corresponding individual priority weights is presented.

The AHP analysis results reveal that the critical spare parts shall be
Expert Choice software was used to calculate the overall prior- given priority in the following order: SP6, SP4, SP3, SP7, SP5, SP8, and
itization weights. SP1. It is worth noting that spare parts SP5 and SP8 have almost equal

221
K. Antosz, R.M.C. Ratnayake
priority (i.e. 5th priority). Fig. 8 illustrates the synthesis (normalized
values of priority weights) with respect to the goal (i.e. prioritization of
spare parts).
Overall inconsistency CR is 0.08 (i.e. < 0.10). Hence, it is revealed
that the judgments are consistent with the spare part prioritization
process.
4.2.4. Sensitivity analysis
The sensitivity analysis was performed to increase transparency in
the prioritization process and also to enable trade-offs to be made be-
tween different criteria, sub-criteria and alternatives. Fig. 9 illustrates
the sensitivity analysis dashboard for the maintenance in connection
with the related prioritization criteria vs. prioritization of spare parts.
The synthesis with respect to the goal (i.e. the prioritization of spare
parts) is indicated on the right ‘y-axis’.
The sensitivity analysis approach enables a comparative overall
estimation to be made of how overall spare part prioritization changes
in relation to the change in a single criterion. For instance, if the
priority of one sub-criterion has been changed, then it is possible to
observe how spare part priority has been changed. The aforementioned
enables an effective trade-off analysis to be made before concluding
final priorities. Furthermore, it provides a high level of transparency,
whilst enabling a holistic view of the overall prioritization process. It is
possible to perform a similar analysis for each node along the hier-
archical diagram, providing greater transparency and subsequent flex-
ibility to investigate all the potential scenarios in the spare part prior-
itization process. The priority value is illustrated by the overall priority
from the intersection of the ‘right y-axis’.
It is also possible to perform two-dimensional analyses for each
node. Two-dimensional sensitivity analyses for nodes were carried out
to illustrate the alternatives priorities with respect to two criteria at a
time. For instance, Fig. 10 demonstrates two-dimensional sensitivity
analysis for nodes: logistics vs. maintenance.
The area of the two-dimensional plot is basically divided into
quadrants here. The most favorable alternatives with respect to the
criteria on the two axes are those in the upper-right quadrant (i.e. the
closer to the upper-right corner, the better the alternative). The least
favorable alternatives are shown in the lower-left quadrant (i.e. the
closer to the lower-left corner, the less favorable the alternative). If the
alternatives are located in the upper-left and lower-right quadrants,
they indicate key trade-offs. For instance, it is possible to observe that
SP6 & SP4 are in the upper-left quadrant and SP5 in the lower-right
quadrant. This also demonstrates where the descending priorities in the
final synthesis are.
Two-dimensional sensitivity analysis for nodes enables the visuali-
zation and interpretation of how each factor (i.e. in this case main-
tenance vs. logistics) is interrelated with a different spare part prior-
itization. Such an analysis enables a detailed explanation to be made of
Fig. 7. Hierarchical structure for the prioritization of spare parts and corresponding individual priority weights.
222
Journal of Manufacturing Systems 50 (2019) 212–225
how the spare parts were prioritized based on different responsible
parties (e.g. maintenance engineering and logistics). Moreover, it is
possible to perform a similar analysis for all the other combinations
along the decision hierarchy.
The gradient sensitivity analysis enables spare part prioritization
with respect to one criterion at a time. For instance, Fig. 11 demon-
strates the machine category.
The red vertical line indicates the criterion priority (based on the
decision-maker’s paired comparisons). Dragging the red bar to the left
or right, it is possible to indicate how a criterion’s priority changes.
Such an analysis enables a logical trade-off to be made between dif-
ferent alternatives, instead of depending on ad hoc conclusions.
5. Conclusions
The prioritization of spare parts is a challenge (although risk-based
prioritizations are possible) among the engineering experts, as it re-
quires the knowledge of the multi-criteria analysis approaches in order
to minimize ad hoc assessments and recommendations after conducting
a macro-level risk analysis. The multi-criteria analysis approaches en-
able complex problems to be coped with (i.e. especially in the micro-
level analysis) by imposing a disciplined structure that directs attention
to the criteria in proportion to the weight which they deserve. Having
the formal multi-criteria analysis approaches increases the transparency
and visualization of how different factors are influenced in the final
prioritization. This work first demonstrated risk-based analysis at a
macro level and then used the multi-criteria analysis approach – the
AHP – to conduct a micro-level analysis in order to minimize ad hoc
assessments and increase the transparency of the assessment and re-
commendation process that supports system safety.
The standard format of the AHP was used to derive weights and the
scores that were realized by the alternatives which are based on pair-
wise comparisons between the criteria and between the options. The
AHP offered a pairwise comparison form of the data input, providing a
straightforward and convenient approach for performing a multi-cri-
teria analysis. In addition, the AHP has provided the following benefits:
flexibility; intuitive appeal to analysts; ability to check inconsistencies;
possibility of decomposing a decision problem into its constituent parts;
ability to build hierarchies of criteria; capability to capture both sub-
jective and objective evaluation measures; a mechanism for checking
the consistency of the evaluation measures and alternatives; support for
the group decision-making and the ability to help model situations of
uncertainty and risk.
In the spare part prioritization process, first a risk-based analysis
was performed at a macro level and then, to make a finer analysis
(micro level), the AHP approach was used. The AHP approach provided
a backbone to carry out such an analysis in a formal manner with a
defined mechanism to incorporate the criteria and sub-criteria for
K. Antosz, R.M.C. Ratnayake Journal of Manufacturing Systems 50 (2019) 212–225

Fig. 8. Prioritization of spare parts: overall priority weights distribution: a) sorted by name and normalized, b) sorted by priority and normalized.

Fig. 9. Sensitivity analysis results (performance sensitivity for nodes) for maintenance in relation to related prioritization criteria vs. prioritization of spare parts.

Fig. 10. Two-dimensional sensitivity analysis for nodes: maintenance vs. logistics.

prioritizing the spare parts. In addition, the suggested approach enabled Furthermore, the work illustrates how to use a risk-based analysis
the spare part prioritization assessments to be visualized along a hier- and the subsequent AHP for performing a spare part prioritization and
archy, facilitating the interpretation of the whole set of criteria and sub- possible sensitivity analysis in order to estimate the trade-offs. An
criteria with the potential alternatives. overall synthesis provides possible priorities, based on the pairwise

223
K. Antosz, R.M.C. Ratnayake Journal of Manufacturing Systems 50 (2019) 212–225

Fig. 11. Gradient sensitivity analysis with respect to machine category.

comparisons. In addition, performance, gradient and two-dimensional
sensitivity analyses provide an alternative means to study how the final
selection is made. This allows one to see how different criteria and sub-
criteria contribute to the final priorities. Hence, the suggested approach
provides transparency in prioritizing spare parts in relation to the cri-
teria and sub-criteria.
However, the drawbacks, such as ‘ranking irregularities’, ‘need to
decompose machine criticality analysis problem into a number of
subsystems’, and ‘requirement to perform a substantial number of
comparisons within which and between which’, limit the use of the AHP
in the spare-part-related prioritizations. Moreover, the AHP approach
has the limitation of being based on the number of pairwise compar-
isons to be made (i.e. the number of comparisons becomes very large [n
(n-1)/2], while modelling and analysis become a lengthy task).
Future research shall be carried out in order to incorporate the
fuzziness present in pairwise comparisons of the spare part prioritiza-
tion analysis. This will also allow the limitation of the use of a nine-
point digital scale of the AHP in the spare-part-related prioritizations to
be overcome.
Additionally, the proposed work has some limitations, due to the
fact that the method was verified in only one production company. That
is why, in further work, this method will also be verified and general-
ized in other companies: different types and branches. An analysis
should also be made of costs or availability, which would show that the
proposed methodology really has an influence on the effectiveness of
spare part management.

Appendix A

See Table A1.

Table A1
Detailed calculations for Table 8.
Spare parts Cm Rt Co R Ft Ff Eq Cp Lt Ps Sn Maintenance Logistics Spare parts category Criticality level

4 2 1 1 3 2 3 1 2 3 2.6 A 2.2 B AB H
4 2 3 1 2 2 3 2 2 3 2.6 A 2.5 B AB H
7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.3 C 1 C CC L
2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.3 C 1 C CC L
2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.3 C 1 C CC L
4 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 B 1.5 B BB M
4 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 3 1.9 B 2.2 B BB M
4 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 B 1.3 C BC M
4 2 2 1 1 2 3 1 1 3 2.3 B 2 C BC M
4 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 2.3 B 1 C BC M
3 2 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2.1 B 1.3 C BC M
3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.6 B l C BC M
3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.6 B 1 C BC M
4 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 2.2 B 1.7 B BB M
4 2 3 1 1 2 3 1 2 3 2.4 B 2.2 B BB M
2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 3 1.6 B 1.9 B BB M
4 2 3 1 1 2 2 1 2 3 2.4 B 2 B BB M
4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.9 B 1 C BC M
4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1.9 B 1.3 C BC M
4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1.9 B 1.3 C BC M
4 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 2 3 2.1 B 2.2 B BB M
4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.9 B 1 C BC M
4 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 2 2 B 1.9 B BB M
4 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.1 B 1 C BC M

224
K. Antosz, R.M.C. Ratnayake
References
[1] Hellingrath B, Cordes AK. Conceptual approach for integrating condition mon-
itoring information and spare parts forecasting methods. Prod Man Res
2014;2(1):725–37.
[2] Wang W. A stochastic model for joint spare parts inventory and planned main-
tenance optimisation. Eur J Oper Res 2012;216(1):127–39.
[3] Karsten F, Basten RJI. Pooling of spare parts between multiple users: how to share
the benefits. Eur J Oper Res 2014;233:94–104.
[4] Lengu D, Syntetos AA, Babaic MZ. Spare parts management: linking distributional
assumptions to demand classification. Eur J Oper Res 2014;235(3):624–35.
[5] Dekker R, Pinçe C, Zuidwijkc R, Naiman MJ. On the use of installed base in-
formation for spare parts logistics: a review of ideas and industry practice. J. Prod.
Econ. 2014;143(2):536–45.
[6] Grondys K. Economic and technical conditions of selection of spare parts suppliers
of technical equipment. Proc. Econ. and Fin. 2015;27:85–92.
[7] Tiemessen HGH, Fleischmann M, van Houtum GJ, van Nunen JAEE, Pratsini E.
Dynamic demand fulfilment in spare parts networks with multiple customer classes.
Eur J Oper Res 2013;228(2):367–80.
[8] Kennedy WJ, Patterson JW, Fredendall LD. An overview of recent literature on
spare parts inventories. Int J Prod Econ 2002;76(2):201–15.
[9] NORSOK-Z008. Risk based maintenance and consequence classification Available
from 2015http://www.mop.ir/portal/file/showfile.aspx?id=96b3dc75-14e4-4303-
99bd-9e3d2b5857dc.
[10] Boylan JE, Syntetos AA. Forecasting for inventory management of service parts. In:
Kobbacy KAH, Murthy DNP, editors. Complex system maintenance handbook. New
York: Springer Verlag; 2008. p. 479–506.
[11] Pennings CLP, van Dalen J, van der Laan EA. Exploiting elapsed time for managing
intermittent demand for spare parts. Eur J Oper Res 2017;258(3):958–69.
[12] Ronzoni C, Ferrara A, Grassi A. A stochastic methodology for the optimal man-
agement of infrequent demand spare parts in the automotive industry. IFAC-
PapersOnLine 2015;48(3):1405–10.
[13] Kranenburg AA, van Houtum GJ. A new partial pooling structure for spare parts
networks. Eur J Oper Res 2009;199(3):908–21.
[14] Lewandowski M, Oelker S. Towards autonomous control in maintenance and spare
part logistics – challenges and opportunities for preacting maintenance concepts.
Proc Techn 2014;15:333–40.
[15] Durán O, Macchi M, Roda I. On the relationship of spare parts inventory policies
with total cost of ownership of industrial assets. IFAC-PapersOnLine
2016;49(28):19–24.
[16] Hellingrath B, Pereira C, Espíndola D, Frazzo EM, Cordes AK, Saalmann P, et al. On
the integration of intelligent maintenance and spare parts supply chain manage-
ment. IFAC-PapersOnLine 2015;48(3):983–8.
[17] Behfard S, van der Heijden MC, Al Hanbali A, Zijm WHM. Last time buy and repair
decisions for spare parts. Eur J Oper Res 2015;244(2):498–510.
[18] Ghorbel N, Addouche SA, El Mhamedi A. Forward management of spare parts stock
shortages via causal reasoning using reinforcement learning. IFAC-PapersOnLine
2015;48(3):1061–6.
[19] Molenaers A, Baets H, Pintelon L, Waeyenbergh G. Criticality classification of spare
parts: a case study. J Prod Econ 2012;140(2):570–8.
[20] Syntetos A, Keyes M, Babai M. Demand categorization in a European spare parts
logistics network. Int. J Op Prod Man 2009;29(34):292–316.
[21] Ramanathan R. ABC inventory classification with multiple-criteria using weighted
linear optimization. Com Op Res 2006;33(3):695–700.
[22] Partovi FY, Anarajan M. Classifying inventory using an artificial neural network
approach. Com Ind Eng 2002;41(4):389–404.
[23] Teunter R, Babai M, Syntetos A. ABC classification: service levels and inventory
costs. PROZIMA 2010;19(3):343–52.
[24] Zhou P, Fan L. A note on multi-criteria ABC inventory classification using weighted
linear optimization. Eur J Oper Res 2007;182(3):1488–91.
[25] Ng WL. A simple classifier for multiple criteria ABC analysis. Eur J Oper Res
2007;177(1):344–53.
[26] Chen J. Peer-estimation for multiple criteria ABC inventory classification. Com
Oper Res 2011;38(12):1784–91.
[27] Ratnayake RMC, Markeset T. Implementing company policies in plant level asset
operations: measuring organisational alignment. Eur J Ind Eng 2010;4(3):355–71.
[28] Ratnayake RMC, Markeset T. Technical integrity management: measuring HSE
awareness using AHP in selecting a maintenance strategy. J Qual Main Eng (JQME)
2010;16(1):44–63.
225
View publication stats
Journal of Manufacturing Systems 50 (2019) 212–225
[29] Ratnayake RMC. A decision model for executing plant strategy: maintaining the
technical integrity of petroleum flowlines. Int J Dec Sci Risk Man (IDJRSM)
2012;4(1/2):1–24.
[30] Gajpal PP, Ganesh LM, Chandrasekharan R. Criticality analysis of spare parts using
the analytic hierarchy process. Int J Prod Econ 1994;35(1-3):293–7.
[31] Braglia M, Grassi A, Montanari R. Multi-attribute classification method for spare
parts inventory management. J Qual Main Eng (JQME) 2004;10(1):55–65.
[32] Botter R, Fortuin L. Stocking strategy for service parts - a case study. Int J Op Prod
Man 2000;20(5-6):656–74.
[33] Huiskonen J. Maintenance spare parts logistics: special characteristics and strategic
choices. Int J Prod Econ 2001;71(1–3):125–33.
[34] Paakki J, Huiskonen J, Pirttilä T. Improving global spare parts distribution chain
performance through part categorization: a case study. Int J Prod Econ
2011;133:164–71.
[35] Wang C, Xu J, Wang H, Zhang Z. A criticality importance-based spare ordering
policy for multi-component degraded systems. Eksploat I Niezawodn - Maint Reliab
2018;20(4):662–70. https://doi.org/10.17531/ein.2018.4.17.
[36] Chen X, Xu D, Xiao L. Joint optimization of replacement and spare ordering for
critical rotary component based on condition signal to date. Eksploat I Niezawodn -
Maint Reliab 2017;19(1):76–85. https://doi.org/10.17531/ein.2017.1.11.
[37] Louit D, Pascual R, Banjevic D, Jardine AKS. Condition-based spares ordering for
critical components. Mech Sys Sig Proc 2011;25:1837–48.
[38] Godoy DR, Pascual R, Knights P. Critical spare parts ordering decisions using
conditional reliability and stochastic lead time. Reliab Eng Syst Saf
2013;119:199–206.
[39] Wang W, Wang SY. An inventory pooling model for spare units of critical systems
that serve multi-companies. Trans Res Part E 2015;76:34–44.
[40] Na H, Yi L, Wang YG, Liu J, Bo Z, Lv XZ. Research on the mean logistic delay time of
the development phrass. Phys Procedia 2012;33:375–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
phpro.2012.05.077.
[41] Lienig J, Bruemmer H. Reliability analysis. Fundamentals of electronic systems
design. Springer International Publishing; 2017. p. 49–56. ISBN 978-3-319-
55839-4.
[42] Birolini A. Reliability engineering: theory and practice. Berlin: Springer; 2013. ISBN
978-3-642-39534-5.
[43] Institute for Telecommunications Sciences. Mean Time To Repair, Definition
Archived 2008-09-25 at the Wayback Machine.
[44] Antosz K, Ratnayake RMC. Classification of spare parts as the element of a proper
realization of the machine maintenance process and logistics – case study. IFAC-
PapersOnLine 2016. 49-12: 389-1393.
[45] Ratnayake RMC. Modelling of asset integrity management process: a case study for
computing operational integrity preference weights. Int J Com Syst Eng
2012;1(1):3–12.
[46] Ruschel E, Alvers Portela Santos E. Freitas Rocha Loures E. Industrial maintenance
decision – making: a systematic literature review. J Man Sys 2017;45:180–94.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2017.09.003.
[47] Saaty TL. How to make a decision: the analytical hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res
1990;48(1):9–26.
[48] Forman E, Sally M. Decision by objectives. World Scientific Press; 2002. ISBN: 981-
02-4142-9.
[49] Saaty TL. Decision making for leaders: the analytical hierarchy process for decisions
in a complex world. Belmont, CA: Lifetime Learning Publications; 1982.
Katarzyna Antosz Dr., Assistant Professor, since 2002 has been working at Rzeszow
University of Technology, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Aeronautics,
Department of Manufacturing and Production Engineering and is a member of the Lean
Learning Academy Poland. She is a specialist in the field of improving and increasing the
efficiency of production in organizations, using the methods and tools of Lean
Manufacturing and Six Sigma, and the reliability and operation of machines and main-
tenance services in enterprises. Author of many publications in this fields.
R.M. Chandima Ratnayake Dr., Professor, since 2007 has been working in the
Department of Mechanical and Structural Engineering and Materials Science, University
of Stavanger. He is also Visiting Professor in the Department of Process Engineering,
Memorial University, St. John’s NL Canada, and the University of Petronas, Malaysia. He
is a specialist in the fields of offshore engineering (risk based inspection and main-
tenance), asset integrity assessment, control and management, and mechanical systems
engineering. Author of many publications in these fields.