Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T00:23:20.088Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Modularizing Maintenance for Improved Production Impact Clarification

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 May 2022

J. K. Agergaard ,
K. V. Sigsgaard ,
N. H. Mortensen ,
J. Ge  and
K. B. Hansen
J. K. Agergaard*
Affiliation:
Technical University of Denmark, Denmark
K. V. Sigsgaard
Affiliation:
Technical University of Denmark, Denmark
N. H. Mortensen
Affiliation:
Technical University of Denmark, Denmark
J. Ge
Affiliation:
Technical University of Denmark, Denmark
K. B. Hansen
Affiliation:
Technical University of Denmark, Denmark
*
jkrag@mek.dtu.dk

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Maintenance is an essential aspect to keeping production facilities running and safe. However, without an overview of the maintenance impact on production, gaining clarification of the impact of maintenance is difficult. This paper introduces modularization of maintenance based on the dimensions of maintenance: physical, action, and process. The approach is applied in a case study where maintenance decisions are improved and faster than prior to the introduction of the modularized maintenance.

Keywords

product architecturemodularisationdata-driven design
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 2: DESIGN2022 , May 2022 , pp. 2413 - 2422
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2022.

References

Agergaard, J.K., Sigsgaard, K.V., Mortensen, N.H., Ge, J., Hansen, K.B. and Khalid, W. (2021), “Standardising maintenance jobs to improve grouping decision making”, Proceedings of the Design Society, Cambridge University Press, Vol. 1, pp. 2701–2710.Google Scholar
Azadivar, F. and Shu, V. (1999), “Maintenance policy selection for JIT production systems”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 37 No. 16, pp. 3725–3738.Google Scholar
Ben-Daya, M., Duffuaa, S.O., Knezevic, J., Ait-Kadi, D. and Raouf, A. (2009), Handbook of Maintenance Management and Engineering, Handbook of Maintenance Management and Engineering, available at:10.1007/978-1-84882-472-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blessing, L.T.M. and Chakrabarti, A. (2009), DRM, a Design Research Methodology, DRM, a Design Research Methodology, available at:10.1007/978-1-84882-587-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chilamkurti, N., Torabi, T. and Elhdad, R. (2014), “Ontology-based framework for maintenance activity analysis and support: A case study for petroleum plant”, International Journal of Systems Assurance Engineering and Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 84–98.Google Scholar
Coussement, K. and Benoit, D.F. (2021), “Interpretable data science for decision making”, Decision Support Systems, Elsevier B.V., Vol. 150, available at:10.1016/J.DSS.2021.113664.Google Scholar
Cui, L. and Li, H. (2006), “Opportunistic maintenance for multi-component shock models”, Mathematical Methods of Operations Research, Vol. 63 No. 3, pp. 493–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Standard, Dansk. (2008), “DS/EN 60300: Dependability management-Part 3-4: Application guide-Guide to the specification of dependability requirements”, available at: (accessed 22 February 2022).Google Scholar
Standard, Dansk. (2012), “DS/SIO 13374-1:2012 Condition monitoring and diagnostics of machines-Data processing, communication and presentation-Part 1: General guidelines”, available at: (accessed 22 February 2022).Google Scholar
Standard, Dansk. (2017), “DS/EN 13306:2017 Maintenance terminology”.Google Scholar
Deighton, M.G. (2016), “Maintenance Management”, Facility Integrity Management, Elsevier, pp. 87–139.Google Scholar
Dekker, R., Wildeman, R.E. and van der Duyn Schouten, F.A. (1997), “A review of multi-component maintenance models with economic dependence”, Mathematical Methods of Operations Research, Physica-Verlag, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 411–435.Google Scholar
Do, P., Vu, H.C., Barros, A. and Bérenguer, C. (2015), “Maintenance grouping for multi-component systems with availability constraints and limited maintenance teams”, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier Ltd, Vol. 142, pp. 56–67.Google Scholar
Eder, W.E. and Hubka, V. (1988), Theory of Technical Systems A Total Concept Theory for Engineering Design.Google Scholar
Laan, Eissens-van der, Broekhuis, M., van Offenbeek, M., and Ahaus, M., K. (2016), “Service decomposition: a conceptual analysis of modularizing services”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Emerald Group Publishing Ltd., Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 308–331.Google Scholar
Fiorentino, M., Uva, A.E., Gattullo, M., Debernardis, S. and Monno, G. (2014), “Augmented reality on large screen for interactive maintenance instructions”, Computers in Industry, Vol. 65 No. 2, pp. 270–278.Google Scholar
Gulati, R. (2012), Maintenance and Reliability Best Practices, available at: https://books.google.com/books?id=fwuDBgAAQBAJ&pgis=1.Google Scholar
Guo, C., Lyu, C., Chen, J. and Zhou, D. (2018), “A multi-event combination maintenance model based on event correlation”, PLoS ONE, Public Library of Science, Vol. 13 No. 11, available at:10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0207390.Google ScholarPubMed
Harlou, U. (2006), Developing Product Families Based on Architectures, Contribution to a Theory of Product Families.Google Scholar
Hodkiewicz, M. and Ho, M.T.W. (2016), “Cleaning historical maintenance work order data for reliability analysis”, Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, Emerald Group Publishing Ltd., Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 146–163.Google Scholar
van Horenbeek, A. and Pintelon, L. (2013), “A dynamic predictive maintenance policy for complex multi-component systems”, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier Ltd, Vol. 120, pp. 39–50.Google Scholar
Hu, J. and Zhang, L. (2014), “Risk based opportunistic maintenance model for complex mechanical systems”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 41 No. 6, pp. 3105–3115.Google Scholar
Hussin, H., Hashim, F.M., Muhammad, M. and Ibrahim, S.N. (2010), “A systematic and practical approach of analyzing offshore system maintenance data”, Proceedings of the International MultiConference of Engineers and Computer Scientists 2010, IMECS 2010, pp. 1546–1551.Google Scholar
Janssen, M., van der Voort, H. and Wahyudi, A. (2017), “Factors influencing big data decision-making quality”, Journal of Business Research, Elsevier Inc., Vol. 70, pp. 338–345.Google Scholar
Kumar, U. and Parida, A. (2008), “Maintenance Performance Measurement (MPM) System”, Springer Series in Reliability Engineering, Springer London, Vol. 8, pp. 459–478.Google Scholar
Løkkegaard, M., Mortensen, N.H. and McAloone, T.C. (2016), “Towards a framework for modular service design synthesis”, Research in Engineering Design, Springer London, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 237–249.Google Scholar
Meyer, Marc H. and Utterback, James M.. (1992), “The Product Family and the Dynamics of Core Capability”, Sloan Management Review.Google Scholar
de Mattos, C.S., Fettermann, D.C. and Cauchick-Miguel, P.A. (2021), “Service modularity: literature overview of concepts, effects, enablers, and methods”, Service Industries Journal, Routledge, Vol. 41 No. 15–16, pp. 1007–1028.Google Scholar
Meyer, M.H. and Lehnerd, A.P. (1997), The Power of Product Platforms, The Free Press.Google Scholar
Mortensen, N.H., Bertram, C.A. and Lundgaard, R. (2019), “Achieving long-term modularization benefits: A small- and medium-sized enterprise study”, Concurrent Engineering Research and Applications, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 14–27.Google Scholar
Nzukam, C., Voisin, A., Levrat, E., Sauter, D. and Iung, B. (2017), “A dynamic maintenance decision approach based on maintenance action grouping for HVAC maintenance costs savings in Non-residential buildings”, Elsevier B.V., Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 13722–13727.Google Scholar
Otto, K., Hölttä-Otto, K., Simpson, T.W., Krause, D., Ripperda, S. and Moon, S.K. (2016), “Global Views on Modular Design Research: Linking Alternative Methods to Support Modular Product Family Concept Development”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Transactions of the ASME, American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Vol. 138 No. 7, available at:10.1115/1.4033654.Google Scholar
Raouf, A. (1993), “On Evaluating Maintenance Performance”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, available at:10.1108/02656719310037965/FULL/HTML.Google Scholar
Ruschel, E., Santos, E.A.P. and Loures, E. de, F.R. (2017), “Industrial maintenance decision-making: A systematic literature review”, Journal of Manufacturing Systems, Elsevier B.V., Vol. 45, pp. 180–194.Google Scholar
Sigsgaard, K. v., Agergaard, J.K., Mortensen, N.H. and Soleymani, I. (2021), “Data-Driven Systematic Evaluation of Preventive Maintenance Performance”, Proceedings - Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., Vol. 2021-May, available at:10.1109/RAMS48097.2021.9605706.Google Scholar
Sigsgaard, K.V.;, Agergaard, J.K.;, Bertram, C.A.;, Mortensen, N.H.;, Soleymani, I.;, Khalid, W.;, Hansen, K.B.;, et al. (2020), “Structuring and Contextualizing Historical Data for Decision Making in Early Development”, Proceedings of the Design Society: DESIGN Conference, Cambridge University Press, Vol. 1, pp. 393–402.Google Scholar
Sigsgaard, K.V., Soleymani, I., Mortensen, N.H., Khalid, W. and Hansen, K.B. (2021), “Toward a framework for a maintenance architecture”, Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, Emerald Group Holdings Ltd., available at:10.1108/JQME-01-2020-0004/FULL/PDF.Google Scholar
Simpson, T.W., Jiao, J.R., Siddique, Z. and Hölttä-Otto, K. (2014), “Advances in product family and product platform design: Methods & applications”, Advances in Product Family and Product Platform Design: Methods and Applications, Springer New York, pp. 1–819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toscano, L. (2000), “Electronic technical manual development”, IEEE Aerospace and Electronic Systems Magazine, IEEE, Vol. 15 No. 8, pp. 22–24.Google Scholar
Ulrich, K. (1995), “The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm”, Research Policy, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 419–440.Google Scholar
Wildeman, R.E., Dekker, R. and Smit, A.C.J.M. (1997), “A dynamic policy for grouping maintenance activities”, European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, Vol. 99 No. 3, pp. 530–551.Google Scholar
Wilson, Stephen. and Perumal, A. (2009), Waging War on Complexity Costs, Waging War on Complexity Costs.Google Scholar
Zille, V., Bérenguer, C., Grall, A. and Despujols, A. (2011), “Modelling multicomponent systems to quantify reliability centred maintenance strategies”, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part O: Journal of Risk and Reliability, SAGE Publications Ltd, Vol. 225 No. 2, pp. 141–160.Google Scholar