Application of Hybrid VIKOR Model in Selection of Maintenance Strategy

Application of Hybrid VIKOR Model in Selection of Maintenance Strategy

M. Ilangkumaran (National Institute of Technology, India) and S. Kumanan (National Institute of Technology, India)
DOI: 10.4018/jisscm.2012040104
OnDemand PDF Download:
List Price: $37.50


This paper focuses on the use of Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP) and VlseKriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje in Serbian (VIKOR) to select an optimum maintenance strategy for a textile industry. In the proposed methodology, first the weight of each criterion is calculated by using improved AHP with fuzzy set theory to overcome the problems of unbalanced scale of judgments, uncertainty and imprecision in the pair-wise comparison process and then the VIKOR method is applied to compensate the imprecise ranking of the AHP in the selection of maintenance strategy. The real case study is conducted for a textile industry to illustrate the utilization of the proposed model for the maintenance strategy selection problem. Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) is applied to make sure that the result of the proposed model can be acceptable. A sensitivity analysis is also conducted to show the validity of the proposed model. The paper gives an insight into multi criteria decision-making (MCDM) techniques to select an optimum maintenance strategy for a process industry using a case study.
Article Preview


Machines become more complex and capital intensive, when demand on productivity, quality, and availability of the equipment increase. Cost, quality, and speed are playing vital roles in business. These three priorities would make the business more competitive at the international market and thus resulting in an improved profit generation (Sriskandarajah et al., 1998; Percy et al., 1997). In order to achieve the key priorities, large organizations are focusing on improved maintenance activities (Anily et al., 1999; Alfares, 1999). King (1990) said that the maintenance costs take up 6% of total sales revenue. In the design stage, maintenance costs are estimated to be 2-6% of capital costs (Grievink et al., 1993). The maintenance cost consumes 15 to 70% of the total production cost. The maintenance costs are usually high due to the high cost of restoring equipment, secondary damage and safety/health hazards inflicted by failures. Penalty costs are associated with loss in production and corrective/ preventive maintenance. The inadequate maintenance will result in higher level of unplanned asset failures, which in turn may cause inherent losses to the organization such as rework, labour, fines for late delivery, scrap, and losing orders due to unsatisfied customers (Moore & Starr, 2006).The selection of an apt maintenance strategy is important as well as complex in maintenance management and the output of maintenance is hard to measure and quantify (Mechefske & Wang, 2001). The right strategy to counter any mode of failure of machines will improve the life cycle profit or reduce the life cycle cost (Labib, 1998). The maintenance strategy selection is very important task for engineering industries. Improper selection may adversely affect the operating budget of the company due to unplanned maintenance cost thereby reducing productivity as well as profitability. Luce (1999) used Weibull law to evaluate the maintenance management method using maintenance cost and production loss. Evaluation of maintenance strategy selection is approximated with a few factors makes the decision unrealistic. De Almeida and Bohoris (1995) suggested a maintenance decision-making model based on decision theory. Triantaphyllou et al. (1997) stated the demand for multi criteria decision making (MCDM) tool. Bevilaqua and Bragila (2000) have described an application of AHP for selecting best maintenance strategy for a newly proposed integrated gasification and combined cycle (IGCC) plant in an oil refinery. Ramadhan et al. (1999) described the use of an analytical hierarchy process to determine the rational weights of importance of pavement maintenance management system. Chan (2003) reported the ranking of the AHP is not precise enough. Hwang and Yoon (1981) proposed TOPSIS as a new multi criteria decision-making tool. This technique is based on positive and negative ideal solutions, which are determined with respect to the distance of each alternative to the best and worst performing alternative respectively. Few works have been found in the literature related to the integration of AHP and TOPSIS. Shyjith et al. (2008) demonstrated the application of AHP with TOPSIS in selection of maintenance strategy. Ertugrul and Karakasoglu (2009) have applied the FAHP and TOPSIS technique to evaluate the performance of cement firms. Baykasoglu et al. (2009) have applied the AHP and TOPSIS in contractor selection problem. Mahmoodzadeh et al. (2007) proposed the integration of FAHP and TOPSIS to a project selection problem. But The TOPSIS methodology does not consider the relative distances from the ideal and negative ideal solution. The limitations can be overcome with VIKOR methodology. Opricovic and Tzeng (2004) have given a detailed comparison of TOPSIS and VIKOR and said that the compromise solution (VIKOR) gives a maximum group utility of the group majority and a minimum individual regret of the opponent. But this is not in the case of TOPSIS. During the literature survey, the selection of maintenance strategy is not listed based on FAHP integrated with VIKOR and also does not consider the shortcomings of AHP in the selection of maintenance strategy; therefore it is necessary to develop a new evaluation scheme. In this paper a formal multi criteria decision making based approach is proposed. The aim of this paper is to propose the combination of FAHP and VIKOR to select a suitable maintenance strategy for the frame unit of a textile spinning mill.

Complete Article List

Search this Journal:
Open Access Articles: Forthcoming
Volume 10: 4 Issues (2017)
Volume 9: 4 Issues (2016)
Volume 8: 4 Issues (2015)
Volume 7: 4 Issues (2014)
Volume 6: 4 Issues (2013)
Volume 5: 4 Issues (2012)
Volume 4: 4 Issues (2011)
Volume 3: 4 Issues (2010)
Volume 2: 4 Issues (2009)
Volume 1: 4 Issues (2008)
View Complete Journal Contents Listing