Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag (Jan-Mar 2012) 3(1):47–63
DOI 10.1007/s13198-012-0092-y
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Advanced model for maintenance management in a continuous
improvement cycle: integration into the business strategy
Luis Barberá • Adolfo Crespo • Pablo Viveros •
Raúl Stegmaier
Received: 19 January 2011 / Revised: 3 February 2012 / Published online: 26 April 2012
 The Society for Reliability Engineering, Quality and Operations Management (SREQOM), India and The Division of Operation and
Maintenance, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden 2012
Abstract This paper presents an advanced model for the
integrated management for industrial plant maintenance
and equivalent. The proposed model achieves to align the
local maintenance objectives with the overall business
objectives. Additionally, the model provides a real opera-
tional context and takes consideration of certain restrictions
that may affect the efficiency and/or the effectiveness of
the industrial maintenance management. First, the impor-
tance of a proper maintenance management and its con-
sequences are discussed. Then, the model will describe in
seven stages how to manage and optimize in a continuous
way all the processes that deal with planning, programming
and maintenance execution. This starts from a management
process in the design stage or, from an already established
management process. Moreover, the model includes fun-
damental aspects that fully integrate the directives of the
business with maintenance activities. This article ends with
conclusions and all references used during the research
process prior to the drafting of this document.
L. Barberá (&)  A. Crespo
Department of Industrial Management, School of Engineering,
University of Seville, Camino de los Descubrimientos s/n,
41092 Seville, Spain
e-mail: lbm@esi.us.es
A. Crespo
e-mail: adolfo@esi.us.es
P. Viveros  R. Stegmaier
Department of Industrial Engineering, Universidad Técnica
Federico Santa Marı́a, Avenida España, 1680 Valparaiso, Chile
e-mail: pablo.viveros@usm.cl
R. Stegmaier
e-mail: raul.stegmaier@usm.cl
Keywords Maintenance management  Maintenance
processes  Maintenance model  Methodologies of
maintenance
1 Introduction
Since the 1970s, companies understand that they need to
integrate the maintenance area within the organization and
facilitate their interaction with the management of other
functional areas (Pintelon and Gelders 1992). The imple-
mentation of a useful model for the overall management of
maintenance has become a subject of research and a fun-
damental issue. This is to achieve efficient and effective
maintenance management, aimed at meeting the business
objectives (Prasad et al. 2006).
Today, the possibilities for successful companies are
focused on the competitive level that they can achieve.
From this perspective, it is particularly important to
identify what factors directly or indirectly affect compet-
itiveness. Due to its direct impact on the competitiveness
of companies, there is no doubt that the maintenance
engineering has become more important. In fact, compa-
nies recognize that maintenance can provide value to their
business (Van Horenbeek et al. 2011). The modern
maintenance management includes all activities to deter-
mine maintenance priorities and objectives, strategies and
responsibilities (EN 13306 2001). This facilitates the
planning, programming and control of the maintenance
execution, and always looks for continuous improvement
whilst taking into account relevant aspects of the organi-
zation (i.e. economic and security aspects). A good
maintenance management, taking into account the life
cycle of each physical asset, must meet the goals of
123
48 Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag (Jan-Mar 2012) 3(1):47–63

reducing overall costs of productive activity (efficiency).
This is to ensure the correct performance of equipment
and its functions (effectiveness); reduce the level of risk to
people and the negative effects on the environment
(effectiveness), and moreover, generate processes and
activities that support these objectives. Therefore, main-
tenance management becomes a powerful competitive
factor of which the importance in the business is growing
every day.
2 Maintenance engineering: management models
The basic concept leading to the maintenance engineering
is the continuous improvement of the maintenance man-
agement process by incorporating knowledge, intelligence
and analysis. They support the decision-making in the field
of maintenance and are designed to enhance the global
output of economic and operational result.
Due to the analysis and modeling of the results obtained
in the execution of maintenance operations, the mainte-
nance engineering permits the renovation of a continuous
and justified strategy. Therefore, programming and plan-
ning activities ensure production at the lowest overall cost.
Moreover, it allows the correct selection of new equipment
with minimum overall costs in terms of their life cycle and
operational security (cost of inefficiency or lost opportunity
cost of production). The objectives of any model of
maintenance management should be determined based on
the business plan of the organization. Maintenance strate-
gies should always be aligned with the company’s business
plans, because the achievement of maintenance objectives
depends upon it, as well as the business plan of the orga-
nization. Therefore, the maintenance and business objec-
tives should be strongly linked together. Some of the main
optimization criteria and objectives are (Van Horenbeek
et al. 2011): maintenance costs (discounted), availability,
maintenance quality, reliability, personnel management
maintainability, inventory of spare parts, environmental
impact, overall equipment effectiveness, safety/risk, num-
ber of maintenance interventions, logistics, capital
replacement decisions, output quantity, life-cycle optimi-
zation and output quality.
Maintenance management is not an isolated process
(Pintelon and Gelders 1992); it is actually a linear system
that depends on factors related to maintenance manage-
ment, as well as internal and external factors of the orga-
nization. Moreover, the most desirable situation is the
complete integration of maintenance management in the
system (Vanneste and Van Wassenhove 1995).
Figure 1 shows the current context which frames the
maintenance management and their interactions in
response to two typologies: internal and external.
Based on ISO 9001–2008, we can establish a sequential
diagram of the maintenance system from the point of view
of the processes that constitutes it (Fig. 2). In this way, it is
possible to distinguish all the aspects that should be taken
into consideration when developing and implementing a
maintenance management model.
A maintenance management model should be effective,
efficient and opportunistic, i.e. it must be aligned with set
objectives that are based on business needs (Van Horen-
beek et al. 2011), and minimize indirect maintenance costs
(Vagliasindi 1989) (associated with production losses).

Fig. 1 Maintenance system OTHER AREAS

OUTSIDE MAINTENANCE SYSTEM OF THE
ORGANIZATION
Suppliers of the Requirements:
elements Information • Functionality
• Security
Reliability and
Information • Availability
maintainability Maintenance Management
existing • Operation cost
Information

Decisions

• Productivity
and

• Environmental
Aspects
• Internal Relations

Human Resources DECISIONS

Personal structure

Spare parts and materials

Resources and infrastructure Physical EQUIPMENT TO

Support equipment (tools). actions BE MAINTAINED
internal and external resources
Administrative and office resources
Computers (hardware and software)
MAINTENANCE
Information RESOURCES

123
Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag (Jan-Mar 2012) 3(1):47–63 49

Fig. 2 Processes of
maintenance system MAINTENANCE CUSTOMER

Management
Responsibility

Strategic
management Measurement,
Continuous
maintenance improvement
analysis and Satisfaction
improvement
Resource
Management INPUT
Requirements
Resourcess
- Human Resources
Maintenance Maintenance OUTPUT
- Spare parts, materials
- Infrastructure Implementation Performed
- Information

Fig. 3 Resources in the

maintenance system
MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT MEASUREMENT, ANALYSIS
SEQUENCE AND IMPROVEMENT

Human Spare Parts and Maintenance

Materials Infrastructure
resources Information
management Management Management Management

RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
PROCESS MANAGEMENT

At the same time, it must be able to operate, produce and
achieve the objectives with the minimum cost (to minimize
direct maintenance costs), and generate activities to improve
key indicators of the maintenance process, related to main-
tainability and reliability. Therefore, to develop a robust and
effective maintenance management model, it is important to
consider all aspects related to managing the resources
available and needed (Crespo 2007) (Fig. 3). The manage-
ment of these resources can be classified based on four
important groups (López Campos et al. 2010a, b): human
resources, spare parts, information, and infrastructure.
For correct management of human resources different
aspects should be enhanced and correctly evaluated, such
as staff motivation, which will largely determine the level
of involvement, their preparation and training on specific
tasks and operations performed; performance evaluation
both individually and collectively as a group, the correct
and easy communication between all parties involved and
the collective acceptance of organizational leadership.
The spare parts and materials management includes all
aspects related to storage and availability (time), i.e. inven-
tories and suppliers (supply). Similarly, the infrastructure
management deals with both internal and external assets and
are necessary to enable correct execution of maintenance, for
example, equipment of support, verification, administration
(office) and computer (hardware and software).
Finally, the correct management of maintenance infor-
mation directly affects the achievement of the set objec-
tives since it is the base of the information to develop
planning and scheduling of maintenance. This information
is compiled using data obtained from the maintenance
process itself (information equipment (individual operation
and maintenance) and maintenance operation) and other
relevant information or data.
3 Organizational structure: management levels
The main strategic objectives of most businesses are to
increase market share and profitability (Porter 1985);
however, the way to achieve this is not unique. This is why
the corporate goals are broken down into objectives and
strategies for different processes, such as operations and
maintenance. In maintenance, this should support the

123
50
achievement of corporate objectives by defining an
appropriate set of policies and resources.
The definition of objectives at different levels of control
represents the purpose of maintenance management.
Moreover, the pillars of these objectives are efficiency,
effectiveness and profitability, as well as knowing that the
overall objective is to contribute to the profitability and
competitiveness of the company (Parida and Chattopad-
hyay 2007; Kans 2008).
Efficiency, in simple terms, explains the relationship
between resources and inputs (input) and the results, while
the effectiveness shows how well the results contribute to
business goals (Anthony 1998). Moreover, the profitability
indicator is a measure of a system/process in terms of
performance during its life cycle (Blanchard 1998).
Maintenance goals (SIS 2001) can be defined as
assigned and accepted goals that require maintenance
activities. Each one belongs to one of the different levels of
control, from the strategic level of maintenance to the
operational level of maintenance. Overall, the strategies
address and define the organizational plan to achieve the
objectives (Anthony 1998), focusing on the ‘‘how’’ they
will be achieved.
The direction of the maintenance unit should be con-
sistent with production goals and overall strategic goals of
the company and, likewise, should be consistent in the
definition of strategies, policies, procedures, organizational
structure and decisions at different levels (planning and
structuring the maintenance work) (Kans 2008).
Emphasizing the level of availability can be defined from
a level of service or expected production (target/goal) that is
committed by senior management of the company and in line
with the actual budget. Thus, the availability level required is
defined in terms of the (fixed) strategy set. Consequently, the
reading of this display becomes an input for the next hier-
archical level (tactical), where core competencies are aimed
at the efficient allocation of available resources (money,
time, staff, etc.) to plan maintenance activities. As a result,
the operational level, fed with the tactical decisions, seeks
the efficient use of resources and considers the technical and
organizational aspects (Kans 2008).
Figure 4, shows the hierarchy of objectives and goals set
for each level, and also indicates other fundamental aspects
in the decision making process. The flow of decision
making for the achievement of strategic, tactical and
operational goals and objectives follow the top-down for-
mat, i.e. starting from the top level (corporate strategy) and
continuing down to the operating level and execution (SIS
2001; Anthony 1998). However, the flow of information
that feeds decision-making starts from the base, giving
empirical support to the decisions.
The efficient and economically correct use of the assets
during its life cycle allows an optimum definition of the
123
Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag (Jan-Mar 2012) 3(1):47–63
Fig. 4 Hierarchy levels of goals
level of asset availability and/or processes, which have as a
goal a level of production, or financial economic indicator,
the ROA (De Andres et al. 2009).
4 Life cycle cost analysis—LCCA
4.1 Basic aspect of the life cycle cost analysis—LCCA
During recent years, the investigation area related to the
life cycle cost analysis has continued its development as
much on the academic level as on the industrial level. It is
important to mention the existence of other methodologies
that have emerged in the area of LCCA, such as: life cycle
cost analysis and environmental impact, total cost analysis
of production assets, among others (Moubray 1997).
These methodologies have their particular characteris-
tics, although regarding the estimation process of the costs
for failure events impact; they usually propose reliability
analysis based on constant failures rates.
The early implementation of the cost analysis tech-
niques allows for early evaluation in advance of potential
design problems, and to quantify the potential impact in
the costs along the life cycle of the industrial assets
(Moubray 1997). For this, procedures exists that group
together in the denominated: techniques of life cycle cost
analysis.
LCCA is defined (Kirk and Dellisola 1996) as an eco-
nomic calculation technique which supports the optimal
making decisions linked to design process, selection,
development and substitution of the assets in a production
system. It, ideally, evaluates the costs, in a quantitative
way, associated to the economical period of expected
useful life and is expressed in yearly equivalent monetary
units (dollars/year, euros/year, pesos/year).
Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag (Jan-Mar 2012) 3(1):47–63
The cost of a life cycle is determined by identifying the
applicable functions in each one of its phases by calculat-
ing the cost of these functions and applying the appropriate
costs during the whole extension of the life cycle. For it to
be complete, the cost of the life cycle should include all the
costs of design, fabrication and production (Ahmed 1995).
From the financial point of view, the costs generated along
the life cycle of the asset are classified in two types of
costs:
• CAPEX Capital costs (design, development, acquisi-
tion, installation, staff training, manuals, documenta-
tion, tools and facilities for maintenance, replacement
parts for assurance, withdrawal).
• OPEX Operational costs: (manpower, operations,
planned maintenance, storage, recruiting and corrective
maintenance—penalizations for failure events/low
Reliability).
4.2 Impact of the reliability in the LCCA
Woodhouse (1991) outlines that to be able to design an
efficient and competitive productive system in the modern
industrial environment, it is necessary to evaluate and to
quantify, in a detailed, way the following two aspects:
• Costs an aspect that is related with all the costs
associated to the expected total life cycle of the
production system. Including: design costs, production,
logistics, development, construction, operation, preven-
tative/corrective maintenance, withdrawal.
Fig. 5 Economic impact of the reliability
Table 1 Description of costs of
Cost for Penalization, due to downtimes.
non reliability
Cost for corrective maintenance
51
• Reliability a factor that allows to predict the form in
which the production processes can lose their opera-
tional continuity, due to events of accidental failures,
and to evaluate the impact on the costs that the failures
cause in security, environment, operations and
production.
The key aspect of the term ‘‘reliability’’ is related to the
operational continuity. In other words, it is possible to
establish that a production system is ‘‘Reliable’’ when it is
able to accomplish its function in a secure and efficient way
along its life cycle. When the production process begins to
be affected by a great quantity of accidental failure events
(low reliability), this scenario causes high costs, associated
mainly with the recovery of the function (direct costs) and
with growing impact in the production process (penaliza-
tion costs). See Fig. 5:
The totals costs of non reliability are described next in
Table 1:
Consequently, in view of the previous information about
the basic aspect and impact of the reliability in the LCCA,
the concept of global cost can be formulated as the sum of
all costs generated during the life cycle of a project, con-
sidering the NPV techniques (net present value of each
cost). this model could insure the business decisions and
actions.
The global cost can be computed using the following
relationship:
Global Cost ¼ Fixed Capital Cost ðPÞ
þ Cost of non Reliability ðP Þ
þ Operational Cost ðPÞ
where (P) represents: present value for each cost.
The cost of fixed capital (or investment) is determined
by the cost of equipment and facilities associated with the
project. The operational cost is defined by the quantifica-
tion of all those elements of the operation of a system, such
as supplies, energy, spare parts, manpower, operations,
planned maintenance, etc. Finally, the cost of non reli-
ability is given by the sum of cost for penalization, which is
associated with the unavailability of the facility during the
evaluation period, and the cost of corrective maintenance.
Therefore, the items of global cost can be represented as
Opportunity looses/deferred production
Production looses (unavailability)
Operational looses
Impact in the quality
Impact in security and environment
Manpower (own or hired) associated to solve non planned event
Material and replacement parts direct costs related with the
consumable parts and the replacements used in the event of an
unplanned action
123
52
follows (Woodhouse 1993; Ruff and Paasch 1993; Barlow
et al. 1993):
" #
Xn
1
FCðPÞ : I0 þ IT  ð1Þ
T¼1 ð1 þ iÞT
" MISSION AND
X n  
CNRðPÞ : CPT  HT  ð1  ASystem;T Þ þ CCMT
T¼1
#
1
 ð2Þ
ð1 þ iÞT
" #
X
n
1
OCðPÞ : OCT  ð3Þ
T¼1 ð1 þ i ÞT
where FC (P), fixed capital in present value; CNR (P), cost
of non reliability in present value; OC (P), operational cost
in present value; OCT (P), operational cost in present value
at time period T; IT, the investment flow at time period T;
I0, the investment flow at time period 0; CPT, cost for
penalization per time unit at time period T ($/h; US/day,
etc.); CCMT, cost for corrective maintenance at time period
T (US, $, etc.); ASystem,T, availability of the system at time
period T; HT, period of evaluation within the project
horizon (e.g. 8760 h); n, number of years or periods in the
planning horizon; and i, capital cost rate of the company at
time period T
LCCA provides the tools to engineer maintenance
budgets, project costs, and present decision making sce-
narios in a financial perspective to achieve the lowest long
term cost. Therefore, different alternatives of equipments,
systems or projects could be analyzed in a way where the
most recommended technical alternative will be the one
with the minimum global cost.
5 Aligning strategy with the overall objectives: BSC
The balanced scorecard (BSC) is a methodology with a
multidimensional approach that can integrate the corporate
strategy of the organization with its own operation. This is
to determine the achievement of organizational objectives
by evaluating business performance through management
indicators (Kaplan and Norton 1996). Thus, the BSC helps
to implement the strategy lines dictated by the interests of
the company (Kaplan and Norton 2005) and moreover,
aligns the objectives of the departments, or the operating
units, with the overall strategic objectives that control their
deviations.
The BSC can be understood as a system of communi-
cation, information and training (on the strategy and the
company itself), which does not replace the traditional
process of strategic planning (Kaplan and Norton 2006),
123
Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag (Jan-Mar 2012) 3(1):47–63
CUSTOMER LEARNING AND
REQUIREMENTS IMPROVING
STRATEGIC
OBJECTIVES
INTERNAL
FINANCIAL
REQUIREMENTS PROCESSES
Fig. 6 Perspectives BSC
but completes and help its communication and imple-
mentation (Abran and Blugione 2003). This methodology
transforms the vision and strategy into a set of objectives
and performance indicators grouped into four core per-
spectives (dimensions) that are deemed critical to the
management and control (Fleisher and Mahaffy 1997)
(Fig. 6):
1. Learning and growth perspective: the aim is to ensure
resilience and long-term renewal of the company (in
response to changes generated by the environment) as
well as maintaining knowledge in the areas considered
core competencies.
2. Internal process perspective: considers the quality,
productivity, and costs of various mission processes
developed by the organization, including the mainte-
nance management process (number of defective units,
production cycle time, idle capacity of equipment,
etc.).
3. Customer perspective: evaluate how to create value for
customers. Seeks to measure the impact and satisfac-
tion level that the organization generates for its
customers.
4. Financial perspective: seeks to measure the survival,
growth and development of the organization in finan-
cial terms and value generation.
The BSC retains the technical and financial measure-
ment (Fleisher and Mahaffy 1997), but also performs a set
of broader integrated measurements that links internal
processes, employees and the performance of systems with
the success of the company in the long-term. In this way
(Michalska 2005), the BSC complements financial indica-
tors while clarifying, translating and transforming the
vision and strategy in order to identify, plan and establish
strategic initiatives.
For their part, the indicators should be defined to mea-
sure a clear objective to which they are associated,
allowing strategic monitoring of them and assessing their
Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag (Jan-Mar 2012) 3(1):47–63
achievement by an officer assigned for that purpose.
Therefore, each initiative, indicator and target will have a
responsible individual in charge who will monitor the level
of accomplishment.
Subsequently, strategic actions or initiatives are defined
by allowing the achievement of the objectives and goals.
The establishment of actions are required to consider the
implementation effort and the benefits derived from them.
Finally an adequate monitoring system must be established
to assess the level of achievement of strategic objectives on
a regular basis (Michalska 2005), and in this way, be able
to make decisions and opportune corrections in the strategy
defined from them.
The indicators taken into account in the BSC method-
ology should be relevant, practical, measurable and im-
plementable (Kaplan and Norton 1992). There are two
types of indicators in the BSC framework (Macdonald
1998): results indicators (lag measures) and performance
indicators (lead measures). The BSC should be a balance
between both types of indicators, since both are necessary.
Lag indicators reflect results of past decisions and give
information about what happened, but are unable to change
the outcome. On the contrary, Lead indicators generally
measure the performance of processes to detect what is
happening and take appropriate action to improve the
outcome. Therefore, this makes it more predictive and
enables faster settings.
Once the indicators are defined, it is necessary to inte-
grate with other pre-existing information systems in the
organization (Kaplan and Norton 1996). In addition, the
sources of each of the data needed to feed the indicators at
appropriate intervals should be identified.
6 Proposal of a new maintenance management model
Currently, there is a big gap between academic models and
application in practice (Van Horenbeek et al. 2011), for this
reason, it is very difficult for industrial companies to adapt
these models to their specific business context. This article
presents an advanced model for the integral maintenance
management in a cycle of continuous improvement, which
is aligned with the strategies, policies and key business
indicators.
For the development and elaboration of the presented
model, numerous proposals have been considered and
arranged chronologically in time. These are as follows:
Pintelon and Van Wassenhove (1990), Riis et al. (1997),
Wireman (1998), Duffuaa et al. (2000), Hassanain et al.
(2001), Campbell and Jardine (2001), Tsang (2002), Wa-
eyenbergh and Pintelon (2002), Murthy et al. (2002),
Cholasuke et al. (2004), Abudayyeh et al. (2005), Pramod
et al. (2006), Prasad et al. (2006), Kelly (2006), Tam et al.
53
(2007), Söderholm et al. (2007), Crespo (2007) and López
Campos et al. (2010a, b). The model also integrates many
of the models used in practice in companies with a long
tradition and excellence in this field (Pintelon and Gelders
1992; Vanneste and Van Wassenhove 1995). In the fol-
lowing table (Table 2), the main innovations, new elements
and trends of maintenance management models through the
years are summarized.
The proposed model arises from the need to consider the
management of maintenance and the existing strategic and
operational context. This is achieved by following a series
of real aspects (not covered in other models) needed to
convert a theoretical model in a real and useful maintenance
management model. Thus, the model takes into account the
real or genuine constraints that could limit the design of
preventive maintenance plans and the resources to do so. It
also considers the selection of critical spare parts (inventory
cost vs. cost due to unavailability of critical equipment) and
the positive involvement of e-technologies (e-maintenance)
in modern maintenance management on a global level.
In turn, the model consists of seven arranged stages that
follow a logical sequence of action hierarchy and align
local maintenance objectives with the global business
objectives (Fig. 7); all this in a framework of continuous
improvement using the principles of the BSC methodology
applied to maintenance management (Fig. 8).
Furthermore, two possible existing scenarios were taken
into consideration for the design of this model: design stage
(life cycle cost analysis LCC), or existing process, and a
functioning one (ranking of critical equipment), which
requires an evaluation for its optimization.
Additionally, the model describes how to manage and
optimize in a continuous way all processes that deal with
planning, programming and implementation of mainte-
nance. All of this in a real operational context, which takes
into account certain restrictions, may affect the efficiency
and/or efficacy of industrial maintenance management.
The model is designed in a simple and practical way that
considers the alignment of key processes of maintenance
management and external processes that support the success
of the whole process. It also facilitates to those responsible for
the overall management of maintenance in an organization.
Each stage of the model corresponds to an action that precedes
the next one; the order and direction of these actions proposed
in the model are unique (with two starting points depending
on the initial or starting position) and not reversible.
Each stage distinguishes and characterizes concrete
actions to follow the different steps of the maintenance
management process. The model is dynamic, sequential and
closed-loop and can precisely determine the course of
actions to be carried out in the management process,
ensuring efficiency, effectiveness and continuous improve-
ment of its own.
123
54 Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag (Jan-Mar 2012) 3(1):47–63

Table 2 Innovations of maintenance management models in chronological order (adapted from (López Campos and Márquez 2009)
Year Innovations Author(s)

1990 Propose a complete system of maintenance indicators Pintelon and Van Wassenhove (1990)
1992 Expose the necessity of linking between maintenance and the other organizational Pintelon and Gelders (1992)
functions
Highlight the importance of using quantitative techniques for maintenance management
1995 Propose an analysis focused on effectiveness and efficiency of maintenance. Emphasize Vanneste and Wassenhove (1995) and
the importance of the managerial leadership in maintenance management Campbell and Jardine (2001)
1997 Propose an integrated modelling approach based on the concepts of situational Riis et al. ( 1997)
management theory
2000 Propose the use of a great variety of Japanese concepts and tools for the statistical control Duffuaa et al. (2000)
of maintenance processes in a module called ‘‘feedback control’’
2001 Orientate the model to the computer use, using a standard for information exchange Hassanain et al. (2001)
2002 The use of e-maintenance. Proposes a guide to analyze the outsourcing convenience as an Tsang et al. (1999)
entry element to the maintenance framework
Incorporate both the tacit knowledge and the explicit one and integrates them in a
computer database. Give special value to the knowledge management
2006 Suggest the union of tools: QFD (Quality Function Deployment) and TPM into a model Pramod et al. (2006)
2007 Propose a process view in which maintenance contributes to the fulfilment of ‘‘external Söderholm et al. (2007)
stakeholders’’ requirements
Proposes a model oriented to the improvement of the operational reliability besides the Crespo (2007)
life cycle cost of the industrial assets
2010 This article shows part of the process of designing and modeling a new maintenance López Campos and Márquez (2009) and
management model completely aligned to the quality management standard ISO López Campos et al. (2010b)
9001:2008 and expressed using the unified modeling language (UML)

has a more or less defined management, especially if there

STRATEGIC
OBJECTIVES
BSC
ACTIONS NOT ALIGNED
Fig. 7 Strategic alignment with the BSC implementation
7 Description of the model stages
Now the model stages will be presented, assuming that the
organization already manages, to a lesser or greater extent,
maintenance.
7.1 Stage 1 Analysis of the current situation: definition
of objectives, strategies and maintenance
responsibilities
First, and as a precursor to any activity, it is necessary to
conduct a baseline assessment or an existing one, in rela-
tion to maintenance management. This analysis must be
completed in the case that the organization or plant already
were any methodology or procedures for this work.
This assessment of the current situation must consider all
aspects related to the maintenance of equipment where
information is available, for example, issues such as plan-
ning, scheduling and execution of maintenance duties, fail-
ure history, mean time to failures (MTTF) indicators and
mean time to repair/recover (MTTR), financial resources
allocated to maintenance, economic impact, or in production
(equipment failure) by unscheduled stop of the plant (sys-
tem) or subsystem, among others (González et al. 2010).
To achieve an accurate performance in the global
management of maintenance in an organization, it is
essential to define, in advance, the objectives (goals) to be
achieved. This is accomplished by establishing a strategy
aimed at these objectives and determining the responsi-
bilities of staff involved at operational and managerial
level. The definition process of a maintenance strategy
requires (Fig. 9):
• To determine the maintenance objectives, based on
corporate business objectives, for example realistic
estimated values for the following performance indica-
tors: availability of equipment, reliability, security, risk,
etc. Determine the performance or actual results of the
production facilities, comparing them with their respec-
tive nominal capacity (ratings).

123
Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag (Jan-Mar 2012) 3(1):47–63
Fig. 8 Proposed model of maintenance management. ‘‘House of Maintenance’’
Fig. 9 Model for the definition of the maintenance strategy (Crespo
2007)
• Identify key indicators for the performance evaluation
of the facilities (key performance indicators—KPIs).
Maintenance management should align all maintenance
activities with a defined strategy on a management, tactical
and operational level.
Once the business priorities change to maintenance
priorities, the preparation of the strategy, according to the
55
objectives, will proceed. In this way we get a generic
maintenance plan in the company that will develop and
focus on those assets considered critical.
Tactical level actions will determine the proper allocation
of resources (skills, materials, testing and measuring
equipment, etc.) to achieve the maintenance plan. The end
result is the creation of a detailed program with all the tasks
to be undertaken and resources allocated for their realization.
In addition, during the process of planning and sched-
uling maintenance needs, skills must be developed to dis-
criminate different options (cost) of available resources
(which can be assigned to perform a certain task in a
specific piece of equipment (asset)), the ideal implemen-
tation place for the task, and the start and execution time.
This will largely determine maintenance policies at the
tactical level.
The actions on an operational level should ensure that
maintenance tasks are performed correctly by selected
technicians by following the outlined procedures on a
schedule time and using the correct tools.
7.2 Stage 2 Ranking of the equipments
Once the objectives have been defined, and the responsi-
bilities and a maintenance strategy has been designed, it is
123
56
of vital importance to discretize the physical assets of the
organization based on their criticality, i.e. greater or lesser
impact in the global production system and/or safety of the
system (business objectives).
There are many qualitative and quantitative techniques
that offer a systematic basis for classifying an asset as
critical (C)/semi-critical (SC)/non-critical (NC), based on
probabilistic risk assessment and obtaining the number/
probability index asset risk (PRA/PRN) (Moubray 1997).
Assets with the highest index will be analyzed first. In
many cases there is no historical data on the basis of which
to obtain these rates. In these cases it is possible to use
more qualitative techniques in order to ensure adequate
initial levels of effectiveness in maintenance operations.
Risk is defined as the product of the frequency for the
consequence of failure. Frequency is the number of failures
in a given time. The weighing of various factors, or criteria,
is of importance depending on the needs of the organiza-
tion that is used to quantify the consequence of failure. The
important criteria depend on each organization where
safety, environment, production, costs (operations and
maintenance), frequency of failures and average repair
time are most commonly used. Once the assets are ranked,
based on their criticality, the criticality matrix is obtained
(Fig. 10) (Crespo 2007).
7.3 Stage 3 Analysis of weaknesses in high-impact
equipments
After completing the hierarchy of the physical assets of the
plant, as a function of its criticality (critical equipment,
semi-critical and noncritical), the next step should be to
conduct a visual-technical inspection that breaks down all
equipment classified as critical in the plant. Semi-critical
Fig. 10 Generic representation of the criticality matrix
123
Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag (Jan-Mar 2012) 3(1):47–63
equipment will be inspected briefly, with a lower level of
detail, while the non-critical assets will not need any
inspection resources because their impact on the system, in
case of a failure, is not significant. Therefore the noncritical
equipment will be allowed to operate until failure occurs.
Preliminary inspection of the C and SC equipment
allows us to know the current status of equipment opera-
tion, deficiencies in performance, operating environment
and all other relevant information which determines the
specific maintenance needs.
At this stage, as in previous ones, it is very important to
consider the information provided by each of the operators
assigned to control and use C and SC equipment. In the
critical equipment, prior to the development of actions that
constitute the maintenance plans, it is recommendable to
analyze the potential repetitive and chronic failures (from
the equipment’s historical data) of which frequency of
occurrence may be considered excessive.
Identifying the reasons that cause these chronic failures
will allow, in the best case, the elimination of the failure
mode, or if not possible, for example, when the cost of
removal far exceeds the cost of failure of the equipment,
the mode of failure can be controlled. The elimination or
control of the failure modes contribute to achieve a high
return on initial investment in the maintenance manage-
ment program. This also facilitates the subsequent stages of
analysis and design of maintenance plans, which require
significant investment of time and resources.
There are different methods for analysis of weaknesses
in critical assets; one of the most common is the root cause
analysis (RCA). It is a methodology that systematically
identifies the primary root causes of failures and applies
further corrections (solutions) to eliminate them perma-
nently. The causes why failures happen can be classified
into physical, human or latent causes. The physical cause is
the technical explanation of why the asset fails. The human
causes include human error (action or omission) that give
rise to physical causes of failure. Finally, the latent cause
includes all the organizational and managerial deficiencies
that result in human errors, and failures become chronic in
systems and procedures not corrected over time. The latent
causes of failure are usually the biggest concern at this
stage of the process of maintenance management.
The RCA has multiple applications, for example:
• Proactively avoiding recurrent failures of high-impact
operational and maintenance costs.
• Reactively solving complex problems that affect an
organization.
• Analysing repetitive failures of equipment or critical
processes.
• Analysing human errors when designing and imple-
menting procedures.
Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag (Jan-Mar 2012) 3(1):47–63
Some benefits expected from the use of RCA are:
• Reduction of the number of incidents, failures and
waste.
• Reduction of expenses and deferred production, asso-
ciated with failure.
• Improvement of reliability, safety and environmental
protection.
• Improvement of efficiency, profitability and productivity.
RCA consists of five phases (Fig. 11) (DOE 1992). As
shown, the solution of the problem is defined directly from
the definition of the problem itself, without developing a
thorough analysis of its root causes.
For RCA, various tools and techniques can be used to
detect the root cause of a problem. The most common
techniques are:
• Logic tree (PROACT) (Latino and Latino 2002)
• Fault tree analysis (FTA) (Mobley 1999; Yang
2007a, b)
• Cause and effect diagram (DOE 1992)
• The five whys technique. (Cornell 2010)
• Ishikawa diagram (Mobley 1999)
There are many other tools that can be used for
RCA. The efficacy of their application depends on the
level of information available and of the detail being
analyzed.
7.4 Stage 4 Design of maintenance and resources plans
required
The design of preventive maintenance plans can be divided
into two main parts:
Fig. 11 RCA methodology
GATHERING OF
INFORMATIÓN
IDENTIFY THE
PROBLEM
PHASE 3
PHASE 4
PHASE 5
57
• Information: This collects data from computers to be
analyzed. It identifies the different functions of equip-
ment analyzed in its operational context. Subsequently,
each function is determined for any failures. Next,
failure modes are identified, this is, the event that
precedes the decision. Finally, and only if necessary,
the root causes of failures would be analyzed if required
(RCA, stage 3). With all this data, it assesses the
consequences of each failure in each of the areas
(operational, safety, environment and cost).
• The decision: This sets out prevention duties (techni-
cally feasible and economically profitable) for the
consequences of failure modes. For each failure mode
or root cause, the following need to be determined: the
maintenance task to perform; the frequency with which
it will be done; the responsibility of running it and the
new risks resulting from application of the maintenance
plan.
One of the strategies used in the industry for designing
strategies and maintenance plans is referred to as RCM
(reliability centered maintenance). This method is widely
used and is convenient for determining the maintenance
needs of any physical asset in its operating environment
(Moubray 1997). It has also been defined (Rausand 1998)
as a method of identifying the functions of a system and
how these functions may fail by, setting in a preliminary
way, preventive maintenance tasks which need to be
applicable and effective.
As a general rule, RCM philosophy, gives priority
maintenance to the critical components for the correct
functioning of a plant (Lehtonen, 2006) and leaves non-
critical components to operate to its failure. In this
instance, the appropriate corrective maintenance is applied.
PHASE 1
DETERMINE
SIGNIFICANCE IDENTIFY IDENTIFY PHASE 2
OF THE CAUSES ROOT CAUSE
PROBLEM
IDENTIFY
IMPLEMENT
EFFECTIVE
SOLUTIONS
SOLUTIONS
INFORM
MONITOR
123
58 Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag (Jan-Mar 2012) 3(1):47–63

The RCM takes into account the operational context of
critical equipment and raises the need for a monitoring
program and an update, (Barberá et al. 2011) (effective
RCM analysis). It is essential to correctly identify the
components considered as critical (Bloom 2006). To
determine the criticality of the failure of a physical asset,
two aspects must be considered: their probability of
occurrence and severity. The probability of occurrence
measures the estimated frequency of occurrence of the
failure, while the severity measures the seriousness of the
impact that this failure may cause over the installation.
This evaluation is completed by the well-known technique
called ‘‘failure modes and effects analysis’’ (FMEA).
The RCM methodology proposes the identification of
failure modes that precede potential failures of equipment,
and the execution of a systematic and uniform process.
This is for the selection of maintenance tasks that are
considered useful and applicable (Moubray 1997). The
result is the recommended groups of maintenance activities
for each asset. This will define the actual content of the
specific activities to be undertaken and their frequency of
execution. Specifically, the RCM analysis methodology
proposes a procedure (Moubray 1997; SAE JA1011 1999)
that, through the formulation of seven questions, helps to
identify the real needs of maintenance of assets in its
operating context (Table 3):
The application of the RCM process is regulated through
SAE-JA1011 (1999) and SAE-JA1012 (2002) norms. Once
the maintenance activities that are considered more effi-
cient for each critical piece of equipment are selected, the
final recommendations of the RCM analysis will be set out
and its implementation will take place.
From these final recommendations, the drafting of the
plan or strategy proposal for the installation maintenance
must be created by allocating the necessary resources. The
implementation of a preventive maintenance program will
help to (Campbell and Jardine 2001; Bloom 2006) antici-
pate failures and repair them with minimal impact on
system performance, eliminating the causes of some fail-
ures and identifying those faults that do not compro-
mise system security. The necessity of considering new
maintenance techniques, adding a possible failure mode or
component initially analyzed, or revising the strategy,
among other things, will make it convenient to periodically
update the global RCM analysis to minimize the obsoles-
cence of the recommendations made over the time.
The preventive maintenance plan generated must spec-
ify all resources needed to implement it: technical data,
regulations, special facilities required, spare parts, supplies,
tools, monitoring equipment for the conditions, auxiliary
(back-up) equipment, test equipment, personnel, etc. At the
same time, the design of preventive maintenance plan for a
given system must take into account possible restrictions in
the operating environment in order to design real and
executable plans. Some of the restrictions that should be
considered are:
• Allocated budget.
• Programming (time available).
• Enforceable rules and regulations for accomplishment
• Operational environmental conditions.
• Working modes.
7.5 Stage 5 Maintenance scheduling and optimization
in the allocation of resources
At this stage a detailed schedule of all maintenance
activities should be made, and the needs of production in
the time scale and the opportunity cost to the business
during the execution of tasks should be taken into con-
sideration. The scheduling of maintenance activities aimed
at optimizing the allocation of human and material
resources, should minimize the impact on production. The
maintenance schedule should be short (\1 year), medium
(1–5 years) and long term ([5 years).
7.6 Stage 6 Control and evaluation of the maintenance
implementation
The execution of maintenance activities (once designed,
planned and scheduled as described in previous sec-
tions) should be evaluated, and deviations continuously

Table 3 RCM methodology

1 What are the functions that must meet the asset and what is the
expected performance in its current defined operating context?
2 How can the equipment completely or partially fail?
3 What is the root cause of functional failure?
4 What happens when a failure occurs?
5 What is the consequence of each failure?
6 What can be done to prevent or predict the
occurrence of each functional failure?
7 What can be done, if possible, to prevent or predict the
occurrence of functional failure?

123
Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag (Jan-Mar 2012) 3(1):47–63
monitored to pursue business objectives and values set for
the selected maintenance KPIs of the organization. The
control of the execution allows feedback to be given and
optimizes the design of the maintenance plans, thereby
improving its effectiveness and efficiency.
The information system design is oriented to collect and
process exact information necessary to satisfy the infor-
mation needs that lead to achieving the basic objectives of
maintenance management. These are increased efficiency
and reduced costs.
The data that will be later analyzed must be as reliable as
possible, i.e. the sheet design or maintenance job order must
be found simple and standard for operators and managers as
this will be the only useful and reliable data available. This
design problem is fundamental to the functioning of the
system. The same happens with the rest of the documents
that capture data which makes up the system.
7.7 Stage 7 Life cycle analysis and the possible
renewal of equipment
The large number of variables that must be managed in
estimating the real cost of an asset over its useful life
creates a scenario of high uncertainty (Durairaj and Ong
2002). Often, the total cost of the production system is not
visible, in particular those costs associated with the oper-
ation, maintenance, installation testing, staff training,
among others. The life cycle cost is determined by iden-
tifying the applicable functions in each of its phases
(design, manufacturing and production), thus, calculating
the cost of these functions and applying the appropriate
cost for the duration of the life cycle (Ahmed 1995).
Through an analysis of the life cycle cost it is possible to
determine the cost of an asset over its useful life. The analysis
of a typical asset could include costs of planning, research
and development, production, operation, maintenance and
removal of equipment (Yang 2007a, b). The acquisition costs
of equipment (including research, design, testing, production
and construction) are usually obvious, but the analysis of the
life cycle costs depends crucially on values derived from
reliability, for example, the analysis of failure rate, the cost of
spare parts, the repair times, the costs of components, etc. An
analysis of the life cycle costs is necessary for optimal
acquisition of new equipment (replacement or a new acqui-
sition) (Campbell and Jardine 2001), since it shows all the
costs associated with an asset (beside the purchase price), and
allows management to develop accurate predictions.
8 Model considerations
The proposed model includes, besides the actual restric-
tions, the application of new ICT technologies at all stages
59
within a cycle of continuous improvement. With the
application of new maintenance technologies, the concept
of ‘‘e-maintenance’’ emerges as a component of the term
‘‘e-manufacturing’’ (Tsang et al. 1999). This promotes the
benefits of new technologies of information and commu-
nication to create corporate environments and distributed
multi-user. ‘‘E-Maintenance’’ can be defined as a mainte-
nance support including resources, services and manage-
ment necessary to enable the implementation of a proactive
process of decision making in maintenance. This support
includes not only Internet technologies, but also ‘‘e-main-
tenance’’ activities (operations and processes) such as
‘‘e-monitoring’’, ‘‘e-diagnosis’’, ‘‘e-prognosis’’, among
others.
Another important aspect of the proposed model is the
technical training and staff involvement at all levels within
the organization. The active and committed participation of
all personnel involved in the maintenance area will be a
critical factor to the success and continuous improvement.
Information between different processing units should be
as easy and simple as possible for correct interpretation and
implementation.
8.1 Why is it important the use of the proposed
methodologies to support maintenance
management?
The importance of root cause analysis tools in maintenance
relies on the need to understand the main causes of failure
on which management or operations may have some con-
trol. This is so they can avoid the chronic failure and return
to a specified plan of action.
The utility of this methodology lies in the fact that it not
only asks ‘‘What happened’’ but also asks ‘‘why did this
happen’’, rather than focus on ‘‘who is to blame?’’
FMEA can be used at the stage of weaknesses analysis
of critical equipment, where an assessment of causes,
failure modes and effects can be relevant. The identifica-
tion of the failure modes is important because it provides a
detailed description of how the event occurs. FMEA takes a
different approach and proactively aims to prevent failure.
It is a systematic method of identifying and preventing
product and process failures before they occur. It does not
require a specific case or adverse event, but rather, a high-
risk process which is chosen for study and where an
interdisciplinary team asks the question ‘‘What can go
wrong with this process and how can we prevent failures?’’
Using a single method may lead to an incomplete anal-
ysis; therefore, in some specific cases there may be appro-
priate integration tools, especially when dealing with
complex systems, and better results can be achieved. In fact,
one of the common combinations to support the RCA
analysis is FMEA and fault tree analysis (Li and Gao 2010).
123
60
For the contribution and added value in the maintenance
management, this research has proposed an entire model
which characterized the course of actions to be imple-
mented, in order to ensure efficiency, effectiveness and
continuous improvement of the management process.
8.2 Advanced software tools to support maintenance
management
The need to implement a software tool that supports the
global management of maintenance will be justified and the
main advantages obtained will be set out:
• Availability of information for decision-making: cost
control, critical equipment, spare parts, suppliers, staff
or any other relevant parameters.
• Management for resources, planning and monitoring
the maintenance execution.
A maintenance management software allows the capture
and use of a large amount of data and parameters. The main
operational features that any software tool of maintenance
management must have are:
• Creation or connection with database facilities: techni-
cal data, operational status, related costs and value of
the assets.
• Storage and analysis of operations historical data: date,
duration, cost, operators, equipment, spare parts, etc.
• Set alarm levels for certain parameters.
• Planning and task management, resources and
inventory.
• Hierarchy of systems and equipment.
• Control the status of each work order and execution of
preventive maintenance programs.
• Reporting.
• Analysis of failures.
8.3 Integration of tools and enabling for the computer
system
It is necessary to generate a common integration policy at
all levels of the organization, thus, all the software tools, to
support different business units and processes of integra-
tion, should achieve a common language that facilitates the
use of multi-user, knowledge generation, the management
analysis of the units and the global economic evaluation
that impacts on the business, among others.
For this reason, the integration of these software tools
with the existing database in the organization (CMMS and
other EAM systems) is key to the success of its imple-
mentation. System integration and the simplicity of
implementation are, and will be, decisive factors in the
123
Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag (Jan-Mar 2012) 3(1):47–63
future development of such software, i.e. in the evaluation
of it by an organization.
8.4 Selection of critical spare parts
In any kind of industry, companies satisfy, with their
activity, a product demand. The answer to this demand is
made with efficiency (profitability) criteria, which typically
include minimum cost and maximum customer satisfac-
tion. This translated into maintenance means minimizing
spare parts inventory and ensuring the availability of
equipment required. However, the complexity of the sys-
tems makes the satisfaction of both criteria difficult, and
sometimes even opposed.
From the technical perspective, the more spare parts that
are available in stock the more it ensures the availability of
equipment. From the economic point of view, the fewer
spare parts are stored, the less immobilized capital will be.
So, it is clear that the parts inventory is important, as it
represents a high cost of storage when it is present, and
when it is not present it may result in extremely high costs
due to unavailability. It is therefore necessary to find for-
mulas that ensure the desired level of availability of
equipment with the least possible capital assets.
The Table 4 shows some key aspects to be taken into
account when selecting the critical spare parts. These fol-
low a logical sequence:
In the main scheme (Fig. 8), the definition of critical
spare parts is integrated into the design phase of planning,
programming and implementation of maintenance. Thus, it
can be understood how these three stages are fed back to
determine the critical spare parts. It is also necessary to
clarify that the criticality analysis and weak points are
taken into account when determining the critical spare
parts. Furthermore, considering all possible variables,
according to the context, may affect one way or another,
the optimal management of the spare parts in an
organization.
8.5 Principles of the BSC in the global maintenance
management
The BSC is a process of dialogue and communication in all
areas of an organization including the maintenance area, to
the extent that this communication process works and
achieves greater participation, alignment and synergy.
The management of financial and technical indicators
allows the company to use the same language on mainte-
nance management. Financial prospects, customers, pro-
cesses and learning, suggest, for example, performing
calculations such as availability in function of the mean
time to repair, and mean time to failure. This improves the
Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag (Jan-Mar 2012) 3(1):47–63 61

Table 4 Aspect to considerer in the critical spare parts selection

Equipment It uses the information from the criticality matrix to determine which spare parts are critical, depending on the consequences
criticality of the failure of equipment to which they belong. Thus, the spare parts storage will consist mainly of C and SC equipment
components, and to a lesser extent, NC equipment components
Consumption After analyzing the history of breakdowns, or the list of items purchased in previous periods (one or two years), it can
determined which items are consumed regularly. All those elements that are consumed regularly and are low cost must be
considered on the list of critical spare parts. Thus, the elements of pumps that are not critical, but often break down, should
be in stock (seals, impellers, fasteners, etc.)
Term Supply Some pieces have an almost instant and constant availability from suppliers near the plant. Others, however, are made to
order, so their availability is not immediate, and even delivery can take months. The parts that belong to critical
equipment, where delivery is not immediate, should integrate the critical spare parts list. The other parts, which makes it
look that SC equipment stays out of service for a long time, which are not yet C equipment, must be considered equally on
this list
Cost The cost is crucial. In general, those high-priced items (main lines, large crowns) should not be stored, but be subject to an
effective predictive maintenance system

Table 5 General application of the BSC approach to maintenance management

Strategic objectives Indicators Goals Action plans Perspective
(kpis)

Mision Improving the effectiveness
and of maintenance costs
strategy
Improve time to repair and
maintenance quality
Improving the maintenance
process and its
documentation
Ensuring adequate levels of
training and education to
fulfill the mission
Maintenance cost Actual: (X)% Ensure adequate data acquisition Financial
per unit of Objective: (X-1)% and the analysis of criticality of
output (%) equipment
Repetitive failures. Repetitive failures \X Programming failure analysis. Customers
MTTR Reduce MTTR in Y % Improved maintenance support
Fulfill the Certificate of maintenance Develop procedures and technical Internal
regulation rules before dd.mm.yyyy inspections processes
Level of training Definition of levels of Definition of levels of training Learning
for each level of training required for required for each maintenance
maintenance each maintenance level level training and evaluation

relationship between parameters such as production, costs 9 Conclusions

and availability.
The ultimate goal of the BSC applied to maintenance
management is to transform the strategic maintenance
objectives for concrete action plans based on key and
comparable management indicators. These are devel-
oped from the four perspectives of the methodology
(Table 5).
The process involves setting indicators, goals and action
plans to be achieved. This way the management can start
aligning with business objectives, especially if the devel-
opment of key indicators goes through a series of func-
tional indicators, the results that are obtained in the
different processes of the business will be closer, and
therefore, easier to measure and control.
The BSC enables deployment and full implementation
of the maintenance strategy at all levels in the company.
This encourages the involvement of all those concerned in
achieving the strategic objectives and achieving strategic
alignment across the organization, from the transformation
of the strategic plans to concrete action plans.
The maintenance requirements have changed dramatically
in recent years and the evaluation of maintenance strate-
gies, the selection of tasks and ultimately the overall
management of maintenance in an organization cannot be
carried out at random or in an informal way. The objectives
of any model of maintenance management are identified
and dependent on the business plan of the organization.
The maintenance strategies should always be aligned with
the business plans of the company, since the accomplish-
ment of the maintenance objectives depends on this, and
also the business plan of the organization itself.
This paper presents an advanced model for global
maintenance management in a closed cycle of continuous
improvement in seven stages. This is based on a review of
a representative set of maintenance management models,
which follow a logical sequence of hierarchical action. For
the contribution and added value in the maintenance
management area, this research proposed an entire model
which characterized the course of actions to be

123
62
implemented, in order to ensure efficiency, effectiveness
and continuous improvement of the management process.
The proposed model allows the alignment of the local
maintenance objectives with the global business objectives
within a framework of continuous improvement. In addi-
tion, it supports the logical decision-making from man-
agement and optimization. This is carried out in a
continuous way in all processes that deal with planning,
programming and implementation of maintenance. It also
takes into account the operational context and considers all
the restrictions that can affect the efficiency and/or effec-
tiveness of maintenance management.
Currently, the presented model is being implemented in
different industries in the mining sector (Chile) and the
facilities of the Panama Canal. The logical sequence of its
stages provides a practical and useful implementation on
the industry. This process will enable authors to develop a
case study to validate each stage of the proposed model,
identifying possible improvements based on new needs
identified during the implementation. The interest showed
by several industry areas about this proposed model pro-
vides feedback for future improvements.
Acknowledgments The research leading to these results has
received funding from the European Community’s Seventh Frame-
work Programme (FP7/2007-2013 under grant agreement no PIRSES-
GA-2008-230814). This research is funded by the Spanish Ministry of
Science and Innovation, Project EMAINSYS (DPI2011-22806) Sist-
emas Inteligentes de Mantenimiento. Procesos emergentes de
E-maintenance para la Sostenibilidad de los Sistemas de Producción,
besides FEDER funds. The authors also wish to thank the reviewers
for their valuable comments which certainly improved the quality of
this paper.
References
Abran A, Blugione L (2003) A multidimensional performance model
for consolidating balanced scorecards. Adv Eng Softw 34(2003):
339–349
Abudayyeh O, Khan T, Yehia S, Randolph D (2005) The design and
implementation of a maintenance information model for rural
municipalities. Adv Eng Softw 36(8):540–548
Ahmed NU (1995) A design and implementation model for life cycle
cost management system. Inf Manag 28:261–269
Anthony RN (1998) Management control systems, 9th edn. Irwin/
McGraw-Hill, USA
Barberá L, González-Prida V, Parra C, Crespo A (2011) Review and
evaluation criteria for software tools supporting the implemen-
tation of the RCM methodology. Int J E-Bus Dev 1(1):1–8
Barlow RE, Clarotti CA, Spizzichino F (1993) Reliability and
decision making. Chapman & Hall, London
Blanchard BS (1998) Logistics engineering and management.
Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River
Campbell JD, Jardine AKS (2001) Maintenance excellence. Marcel
Dekker, New York
Cholasuke C, Bhardwa R, Antony J (2004) The status of maintenance
management in UK manufacturing organisations: results from a
pilot survey. J Qual Maint Eng 10(1):5
123
Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag (Jan-Mar 2012) 3(1):47–63
Cornell K (2010) WebKaizen, better faster cheaper. Problem solving
for business. Prevail Digital Publishing, Omaha
Crespo MA (2007) The maintenance management framework.
Models and methods for complex systems maintenance.
Springer, London
De Andres J, Landajo M, Lorca P (2009) Flexible quantile-based
modeling of bivariate financial relationships: the case of ROA
ratio. Expert Syst Appl 36:8955–8966
Duffuaa S, Raouf A, Dixon Campbell J (2000) Maintenance system.
Planning and control. México, Limusa
Durairaj S, Ong S (2002) Evaluation of life cycle cost analysis
methodologies. Corp Environ Strateg 9(1):30–39
EN 13306:2001 (2001) Maintenance terminology. European Stan-
dard. CEN. European Committee for Standardization, Brussels
Fleisher CY, Mahaffy D (1997) A balanced scorecard approach to
public relations management assessment. Publ Relat Rev 23(2):
117–142
González V, Barberá L, Crespo A (2010) Practical application of a
RAMS analysis for the improvement of the warranty management.
In: Published in the 1st IFAC workshop on advanced maintenance
engineering, services and technology, Lisbon, Portugal
Hassanain MA, Froese TM, Vanier DJ (2001) Development of a
maintenance management model based on IAI standards. Artif
Intell Eng 15(1):177–193
Kans M (2008) An approach for determining the requirements of
computerized maintenance management systems. Comput Ind
59:32–40
Kaplan RY, Norton D (1992) The balanced scorecard: measures that
drive performance. Harv Bus Rev 70(1): 71–79
Kaplan RS, Norton DP (1996) The balanced scorecard: translating
strategy into action. Harvard Business School Press, Boston
Kaplan RY, Norton D (2005) The office of strategy management.
Harv Bus Rev 83(10):72
Kaplan R, Norton D (2006) Alignment: using the balanced scorecard
to create corporate synergies. Harvard Business School Press,
Boston
Kelly A (2006) Maintenance and the industrial organization in
strategic maintenance planning. Butterworth-Heinemann, UK
Kirk S, Dellisola A (1996) Life cycle costing for design professionals.
McGraw Hill, New York, pp 6–57
Latino RJ, Latino KC (2002) Root cause analysis: improving
performance for bottom-line results, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Boca
Raton
Li D, Gao J (2010) Study and application of reliability-centered
maintenance. J Loss Prev Process Ind 23:622–629
López Campos MA, Márquez AC (2009) Review, classification and
comparative analysis of maintenance management models.
J Autom Mob Robot Intell Syst 3(3)
López Campos MA, Gómez Fernández JF, González Dı́az V, Crespo
MA (2010a) A new maintenance management model expressed
in UML reliability, risk and safety: theory and applications. In:
Briš GS, Martorell (eds) Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN
978-0-415-55509-8
López Campos MA, Gómez JF, González V, Crespo A (2010b) A
new maintenance management model expressed in UML. In:
Reliability, risk and safety: theory and applications. Taylor &
Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-55509-8
Macdonald M (1998) Using the balanced scorecard to align strategy
and performance in long-term care. Healthc Manag Forum
11(3):33–38
Michalska J (2005) The usage of the balanced scorecard for the
estimation of the enterprise’s effectiveness. J Mater Process
Technol 162–163:751–758
Mobley RK (1999) Root cause failure analysis. Butterworth-Heine-
mann, UK
Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag (Jan-Mar 2012) 3(1):47–63
Moubray J (1997) Reliability-centred maintenance, 2nd edn. Butter-
worth-Heinemann, Oxford
Murthy DNP, Atrens A, Eccleston JA (2002) Strategic maintenance
management. J Qual Maint Eng 8(4):287–305
Bloom NB (2006) Reliability centered maintenance: implementation
made simple. McGraw Hill, New York
Parida A, Chattopadhyay G (2007) Development of a multi-criteria
hierarchical framework for maintenance performance measure-
ment (MPM). J Qual Maint Eng 13(3):241–258
Pintelon LM, Gelders LF (1992) Maintenance management decision
making. Eur J Oper Res 58(3):301–317
Pintelon L, Van Wassenhove L (1990) A maintenance management
tool. Omega 18(1):59–70
Porter ME (1985) Competitive advantage. The Free Press, New York
Pramod VR, Devadasan SR, Muthu S, Jagathyraj VP, Dhakshina
Moorthy G (2006) Integrating TPM and QFD for improving
quality in maintenance engineering. J Qual Maint Eng 12(2):
1355–2511
Prasad MR, Anand D, Kodali R (2006) Development of a framework
for world-class maintenance systems. J Adv Manuf Syst 5(2):
141–165
Rausand M (1998) Reability centered maintenance. Reliab Eng Syst
Saf 60:121–132
Riis J, Luxhoj J, Thorsteinsson U (1997) A situational maintenance
model. Int J Qual Reliab Manag 14(4):349–366
Ruff DN, Paasch RK (1993) Consideration of failure diagnosis in
conceptual design of mechanical systems. Design theory and
methodology. ASME, New York, pp 175–187
SAE JA1011 (1999) Evaluation criteria for reliability-centered
maintenance (RCM) processes. Society for Automotive Engi-
neers, Agosto
SAE JA1012 (2002)—A guide to the reliability-centered maintenance
(RCM) standard
63
SIS (2001) Official Swedish version of EN 13306:2001
Söderholm P, Holmgren M, Klefsjö B (2007) A process view of
maintenance and its stakeholders. J Qual Maint Eng 13(1):19–32
Tam A, Price J, Beveridge A (2007) A maintenance optimisation
framework in application to optimise power station boiler
pressure parts maintenance. J Qual Maint Eng 13(4):364–384
Tsang A (2002) Strategic dimensions of maintenance management.
J Qual Maint Eng 8(1):7–39
Tsang A, Jardine A, Kolodny H (1999) Measuring maintenance
performance: a holistic approach. Int J Oper Prod Manag 19(7):
691–715
U.S department of Energy (DOE) (1992) Root cause analysis
guidance document. Washington, DC
Vagliasindi F (1989) Gestire la manutenzione. Perche e come. Franco
Angeli, Milano
Van Horenbeek A, Pintelon L, Muchiri P (2011) Maintenance
optimization models and criteria. Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag
1(3):189–200
Vanneste SG, Van Wassenhove LN (1995) An integrated and
structured approach to improve maintenance. Eur J Oper Res 82:
241–257
Waeyenbergh G, Pintelon L (2002) Aframework for maintenance
concept development. Int J Prod Econ 77(1):299–313
Wireman T (1998) Development performance indicators for manag-
ing maintenance. Industrial Press, NewYork
Woodhouse J (1991) Turning engineers into businessmen. In: 14th
national maintenance conference, London
Woodhouse J (1993) Managing industrial risk. Chapman Hill Inc,
London
Yang G (2007a) Life cycle reliability engineering. Wiley, New Jersey
Yang G (2007b) Life cycle reliability engineering. Wiley, Hoboken
123