International Journal of Operations & Production Management

A framework for managing maintenance using performance measurement systems

K.Y. Kutucuoglu, J. Hamali, Z. Irani, J.M. Sharp,
Article information:
To cite this document:
K.Y. Kutucuoglu, J. Hamali, Z. Irani, J.M. Sharp, (2001) "A framework for managing maintenance using
performance measurement systems", International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol.
21 Issue: 1/2, pp.173-195, https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570110358521
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570110358521
Downloaded by Iowa State University At 12:23 23 January 2019 (PT)

Downloaded on: 23 January 2019, At: 12:23 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 38 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 5224 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2006),"Maintenance performance measurement (MPM): issues and challenges", Journal
of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 12 Iss 3 pp. 239-251 <a href="https://
doi.org/10.1108/13552510610685084">https://doi.org/10.1108/13552510610685084</a>
(1999),"Measuring maintenance performance: a holistic approach", International Journal
of Operations &amp; Production Management, Vol. 19 Iss 7 pp. 691-715 <a href="https://
doi.org/10.1108/01443579910271674">https://doi.org/10.1108/01443579910271674</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:178063 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emerald-library.com/ft

A framework for managing A framework for

managing
maintenance using maintenance

performance measurement
systems 173

K.Y. Kutucuoglu and J. Hamali

University of Salford, Salford, UK
Z. Irani
Brunel University, Uxbridge, UK, and
Downloaded by Iowa State University At 12:23 23 January 2019 (PT)

J.M. Sharp
University of Salford, Salford, UK
Keywords Performance measurement, Maintenance, Quality function deployment
Abstract The role of maintenance in modern manufacturing is becoming ever more important,
with companies adopting maintenance as a profit-generating business element. As a result,
traditional terms used to describe maintenance such as ``necessary evil'' seem to be obsolete. It
would appear that the aim of the maintenance function is to contribute towards an organisation's
profit, clearly bringing the need for maintenance operations to be in harmony with corporate
business objectives. As the measurement activity provides the link between the actual output and
the desired results, performance measurement systems are crucial to those who have a stake in
maintenance, to ensure that they are not in conflict with the overall business needs. This paper
looks at the role of performance measurement systems (PMS) in maintenance, with particular
reference to developing a new PMS using the quality function deployment (QFD) technique. First,
a literature review on performance measurement is presented, in which the key factors for an
effective PMS are identified. Second, common PMSs for maintenance are examined. Then, based
on the principles of an effective PMS a discussion on PMSs is presented, when applied to the
maintenance function. Next, a framework is developed to embrace these key facets, which is
followed by a discussion of its practical implications, in the light of its application within a SME.

Introduction
Over the past decade, plant maintenance has evolved to be one of the most
important areas in the business environment. Dramatic changes in the way
manufacturing companies operate, caused by increased global competition,
have affected maintenance, and made its role in business success ever more
crucial. Today it has been acknowledged by many authors and practitioners
that maintenance is a major contributor to the performance and profitability of
manufacturing systems (Maggard and Rhyne, 1992; Pehanich, 1995; Coetzee,
1998). Furthermore, Maggard and Rhyne (1992) relate the increasing
importance of maintenance to the performance criteria of world-class
manufacturing systems. Hartmann (1992) talks of major challenges that
confront maintenance, some of which are quality improvement, cycle time, International Journal of Operations &
set-up time and cost reductions, capacity expansion and related environmental Production Management,
Vol. 21 No. 1/2, 2001, pp. 173-194.
issues. Despite this broad scope of influential factors, there is evidence that # MCB University Press, 0144-3577
 IJOPM suggests the lack of linkage between maintenance objectives and the overall
21,1/2 corporate strategy of manufacturing companies. Riis et al. (1997) report two
benchmarking studies conducted by EUREKA (1993) and Wireman (1990),
which reveal a lack of linkage between maintenance and quality improvement
strategies, together with an overall neglect of maintenance as a competitive
weapon. Nakajima (1988) and Hirano (1997) in Japan, and their Western
174 counterparts Hartmann (1992) and Willmott (1994) showed that some
companies have enhanced their competitiveness through the applications of
total productive maintenance and 5S (a Japanese housekeeping activity) and
accomplished an improved maintenance function. On the other hand, Coetzee
(1997) reports that maintenance costs are still on the rise, and that service
availability of systems being maintained is often unacceptably low. Clearly,
there is still much to be done in order to achieve the harmony between the
Downloaded by Iowa State University At 12:23 23 January 2019 (PT)

corporate objectives of a company and its maintenance operations. The reason

for this is that the complexity of the maintenance function often makes it
difficult to develop a causal relationship between the managerial decisions and
the overall success or failure of the actual maintenance system. One possible
conjecture to overcome this difficulty could be developing a performance
measurement system for maintenance that will provide a top-down and
bottom-up communication system between the corporate strategy and the
different hierarchies of the maintenance organisation.
Most maintenance sources provide an oversight of common performance
indicators (PIs), which usually represents the operational view of maintenance.
However, there is little literature available that covers the development of a
systematic approach to performance measurement (PM) in maintenance, one
that embraces every aspect of maintenance, namely strategic, tactical and
operational. The literature provided by Pintelon and Van Puyvelde (1997),
Tsang (1998) emphasising the strategic aspect, together with Coetzee (1998),
formed the basis for this study. Building on such a background, this paper
contributes to this specific area by developing a performance measurement
system (PMS) framework.

Principles of effective performance measurement systems

The importance of performance measurement cannot be overemphasised, with
many authors stressing its role in today's information-driven decision making
environment. Rose (1995) states that performance measurement is the language
of progress for the organisation. It indicates where the organisation is and
where it is heading. It functions as a guide to whether the organisation is en
route to achieving its goals. It is also a powerful behavioural tool, since it
communicates to the employee, what is important and what matters for the
achievement of the organisation's goal. Clearly the basis of PM is that unless a
score is kept, it is difficult to know whether you are winning or losing (Hatry,
1978). Webster and Hung (1994) state that measurement is a key management
activity that provides decision makers with information necessary for decision
making, monitoring performance and effective allocation of resources.
 Atkinson et al. (1997) state that performance measurement serves three basic A framework for
functions, which are to co-ordinate, to monitor and to diagnose. Through these managing
functions, performance measurement, if implemented and used properly, can maintenance
actually change the lives of people and organisations. The implications of such
performance measurement systems are, as Meekings (1995) states:
. the role of measurement is changed from backward-looking record-
keeping to forward-looking prediction and insight; 175
. measures are used to provide feedback, build understanding and
encourage intrinsic motivation, rather than as a tool for top-down
management control;
. the focus is on systematic thinking, fundamental structural change and
organisational learning, instead of mindless target-setting, continual
Downloaded by Iowa State University At 12:23 23 January 2019 (PT)

fire-fighting or the rigorous allocation of blame;

. measures become a framework for everyone to understand and align
with top-level objectives of the organisation, and enable them to actively
and enthusiastically participate in continuous improvement.
To develop such an effective performance measurement system, various
authors (Oakland, 1995; Ovretveit, 1993; Edvardsson et al., 1994) suggest that
the following questions must be answered:
. Why measurement is required? (Purpose.)
. What should be measured? (Finding factors that are important.)
. How it should be measured? (Methods.)
. When should it be measured? (Timing and time frame.)
. Who should measure it? (Owner of the process versus independent
party.)
. How should the result be used? ( Assessment, improvement purposes.)
While these constitute the general requirements of an ideal PMS, the traditional
view of performance measurement relies heavily on financial and accounting
data, which might prevent the implementation of an effective PMS. However, it
is not within the scope of this paper to discuss financial measures of
performance, which are discussed in detail by Van Schalkwyk (1998). Today
many authors and practitioners acknowledge and make attempts to enlarge
this limited view of PM. Kaplan and Norton (1992) developed a balanced
scorecard that is intended to give top managers a fast but comprehensive view
of the business. The balanced scorecard includes operational measures on
customer satisfaction, internal processes and the organisation's innovation and
improvement activities, as well as financial measures. It translates vision and
strategy using the four perspectives of measurement as illustrated in Figure 1.
Kaplan and Norton (1996) have also introduced four new management processes
that are considered to contribute towards linking long-term strategic objectives
with short-term actions. The four processes are illustrated in Figure 2.
 IJOPM
21,1/2

176
Downloaded by Iowa State University At 12:23 23 January 2019 (PT)

Figure 1.
Translating vision and
strategy: four
perspectives

Figure 2.
Managing strategy: four
processes
 In summary, the balanced scorecard provides managers with a balanced A framework for
presentation of both financial and operational measures, on the basis that no managing
single measures can provide a clear performance target or focused attention on maintenance
critical areas of the business. It also lets managers introduce four new
management processes that, separately and in combination, contribute towards
linking long-term strategic objectives with short-term actions.
In line with Kaplan and Norton's work, Chenhall (1997) shows that 177
performance evaluation systems should include direct measures of the
manufacturing processes, in addition to financial measures.
In furtherance to the work published by Kaplan and Norton (1992), Brown et
al. (1994) emphasise various perspectives of performance measurement, and
identify six types of performance measures:
Downloaded by Iowa State University At 12:23 23 January 2019 (PT)

(1) customer satisfaction measures;

(2) financial measures;
(3) product/service quality measures;
(4) employee satisfaction measures;
(5) operational measures;
(6) public responsibility measures.
Similarly, Cupello (1994) looks at performance hierarchies for different
performance measures, and provides four reasons why organisations need to
conduct measurement. The purposes of measurement are for planning,
screening, control and diagnosing. Planning measures, which are the
responsibility of top management, are measures that address issues related to
whether the organisation is achieving its strategic plan. Screening measures on
the other hand are targeted at measuring whether the functional areas of the
organisation are in support of the organisation's strategic plan. These
measures are the responsibility of middle management. The performance of
individual employees, machines, products, services and processes are classified
as control measures. The purpose of diagnostic measures are to determine
whether the organisation's quality initiatives are achieving the desired result.
The type of measures that come under this category are customer satisfaction
measures, employee satisfaction measures, project performance measures and
supplier performance measures.
Rummler and Brache (1995) elaborate on performance hierarchies and
linking performance to strategy. Three levels of performance are identified
which are organisation, process and job/performer. They also recognise three
performance needs, namely goals, design and management. Through
combining these two dimensions into a matrix, they devise ``the nine
performance variables'' framework. Rummler and Brache (1995) argue that
organisations need such a framework to align their performance measurement
system with the corporate strategic goals of a company by setting objectives
and defining key performance at each level.
 IJOPM Rummler and Brache (1995) also highlight another important problem
21,1/2 associated with performance measurement practices, which they call ``The silo
phenomenon''. They argue that managers only see their organisations
vertically and functionally. This turns departments into silos (tall, thick
windowless structures), where each function strives to meet its goals. This
functional optimisation often contributes to the suboptimisation of the
178 organisation as a whole. Consequently, cross-functional issues in which the
greatest opportunities for performance improvement lie, do not get addressed
at all. Therefore, managers need to see their organisations as horizontal and
vertical functioning systems, to understand the variables that influence
performance.
White (1996) points out that PMS should include subjective measures as well
as objective measures. In expressing this:
Downloaded by Iowa State University At 12:23 23 January 2019 (PT)

Objective measures have the advantage of not being biased by whomever is providing the
opinion. Conversely, subjective measures provide a wealth and variety which is not
obtainable from objective measures alone. . .

Sinclair and Zairi (1996) highlight the need to involve employees in the
development of performance measurement. Employees are the individuals who
operate the processes and who know the task best and thus, getting them
involved will not only result in commitment toward efficient performance
measurement, but also influence the actual performance too.
In summary the literature on performance measurement suggests that an
effective PMS should include the following features:
. recognise different performance hierarchies;
. present a balanced view of the system being measured;
. recognise multiple dimensions of performance measures;
. relate the measures to the relevant goals;
. link performance measures to strategy;
. involve employees to ensure that it gets their support;
. include subjective measures as well as objective ones;
. address cross-functional issues.

Performance measurement in maintenance

The aim of this section is to identify the key design features of an effective PMS
for maintenance rather than to examine individual performance indicators
(PIs). However, a brief review of common PIs would be beneficial to identify the
multiple facets of a balanced PMS. This review will also help identify common
pitfalls with regard to the selection and implementation of PIs.
As a result of increasing automation and mechanisation, production
processes are shifting from workers to machines (Ben-Daya and Duffuaa, 1995).
The potential impact of equipment maintenance on flexibility, quality, costs,
environmental and employee safety is more evident and important than ever.
 These are some of the factors which led to the recognition of maintenance as a A framework for
potential profit-generating function. Therefore, the necessity of the managing
measurement in maintenance is a result of the need to contribute maximally to maintenance
the organisation's profit.
Coetzee (1998) defines maintenance as an activity that aims to optimise the
availability and reliability of production equipment, and maintain its
operability at an acceptable cost level. Coetzee (1998) provides a comprehensive 179
list of performance indicators and ratios. In doing so, a classification of 21
indices under four categories are identified:
(1) machine/facility maintenance efficiency;
(2) task efficiency;
(3) organisational efficiency;
Downloaded by Iowa State University At 12:23 23 January 2019 (PT)

(4) profit/cost efficiency.

Table I presents the summary of these indices and their corresponding
categories.
Coetzee (1998) also suggests the use of performance ratios that are parallel to
the performance parameters defined in Table I. Such performance ratios serve
to enhance an understanding of the message conveyed by the various
measurement parameters presented in Table I. Some examples of these
performance ratios include availability, mean time to failure, manpower
utilisation and overall maintenance cost effectiveness. Although the measures
form a balanced view of the maintenance system, they are yet limited to
operational and tactical aspects. The measures appeal to different performance
hierarchies but it is difficult to identify the specific hierarchies to which they
belong. They are also numeric and hard measures with no clear connections to
the corporate strategy.

Performance parameters Performance measurement categories

Machine/facility Organisational
maintenance efficiency Task efficiency efficiency Profit/cost efficiency

Total production time Number of tasks Time planned for Total maintenance
Downtime completed scheduled tasks cost
Number of breakdowns Number of tasks Time planned for Cost of lost
Production received overdue production
Number of tasks scheduled tasks Value of stock at
overdue Time spent on the end of period
Clocked time scheduled tasks Plant investment
Time allowed on Time spent on value
tasks breakdowns
Time spent on tasks Cost of breakdowns
Total direct Table I.
maintenance costs Performance
parameters in
Source: Derived from Coetzee (1998) maintenance
 IJOPM Pintelon and Van Puyvelde (1997) argue that maintenance performance will
21,1/2 depend on the perspective applied: accountants will think of maintenance in
terms of costs, top management often is only interested in budget performance,
engineers will focus on techniques, production will see performance in terms of
equipment availability and support responsiveness.
It is apparent that maintenance has many interfaces with other functions. In
180 most cases, machines and equipment are designed and supplied by an outside
organisation. With so many customers and suppliers both internally and
externally, the objectives of the maintenance function have to be clearly defined
in order to avoid the functional suboptimisation. Riis et al. (1997) provide a
framework showing the horizontal and vertical integration levels and
highlighting the significance of cross-level maintenance integration to avoid
creating maintenance islands. Figure 3 attempts to relate maintenance to
Downloaded by Iowa State University At 12:23 23 January 2019 (PT)

manufacturing strategy. Although production is the main and direct customer

of maintenance, there are other customers and suppliers such as design,
finance, top management with which maintenance has cross-functional
relationships. Therefore, performance measurement should include all the
cross-functional relationships to link maintenance to corporate strategy.
Total productive maintenance (Nakajima, 1988) provides a metric, termed
the overall equipment effectiveness (OEE), which is defined as a function of
equipment reliability, quality rate and equipment performance efficiency. This
metric offers a starting-point for developing quantitative variables for relating
maintenance measurement to corporate strategy.

Figure 3.
Cross levels and
functional integration of
maintenance
management
 From the review of PM literature and its specific implications for maintenance, A framework for
as discussed above, performance measures for a balanced view of the managing
maintenance system can be classified into five categories: maintenance
(1) equipment related performance;
(2) task related performance;
(3) cost related performance; 181
(4) immediate customer impact related performance;
(5) learning and growth related performance.

Common performance measurement systems for maintenance

Pintelon and Van Puyvelde (1997) explain the difficulties associated with
Downloaded by Iowa State University At 12:23 23 January 2019 (PT)

establishing an effective measurement system for maintenance. Maintenance is

a service function for production, therefore both the merits and shortcomings of
the service rendered are not immediately apparent. It is clear that the
complexity of the maintenance function and its dependence on the specificity of
the situation are also relevant problems.
Pintelon et al. (1997) provide an overview of the most currently used
performance measurement systems. Table II shows the advantages and
disadvantages of such systems.
Examination of each measurement system in Table II is not in the scope of
this paper. Suffice to say that the systems in Table II differ by the choice of the

System Advantages Disadvantages

Indicators
Global PI Very popular (compact!) Tricky because of (too) strong
aggregation
Set of PIs More complete Clear evaluation not always possible
Structured PI list Standardised Follow-up not always easy

Reference numbers
Checklists Quick insight Only rough insight ± setting general
``ideal'' values is impossible
Surveys OK. if available To be handled with care
Graphs
Diagrams Popular Easily manipulated (misuse)
Multi-index profile Actual is target performance Often subjective
Radar graph Insight Limited number of PIs

More elaborate
models
Hibi Global, complete Rigid, time-consuming
Luck Rather complete Complex Table II.
MMT Complete, handy Critical implementation step Performance
measurement systems:
Source: Pintelon et al. (1997) an overview
 IJOPM indicators and the way of presentation. Although most of them include a
21,1/2 comprehensive view of operational aspects of maintenance, they are not
particularly designed in a way that maintenance measures are linked to
corporate strategy.
Sharp et al. (1997) adapted the total quality management philosophy to
improve maintenance performance. In a case study, the authors identified
182 critical success factors (CSFs) associated with maintenance. Then they broke
down these CSFs into various critical processes and defined individual roles.
Sharp et al. (1997) reported a case study that achieved dramatic improvements
through performance measurement in all aspects of maintenance. Furthermore
Sharp et al. (1998) showed that improved maintenance performance can be
achieved through the complementary use of total productive maintenance and
total quality management. Dwight (1995) states the properties of a ``good''
Downloaded by Iowa State University At 12:23 23 January 2019 (PT)

performance measure:
. an agreed standard exists for which there is generally commitment from
those required to control to it, or improve by it;
. there is a known cause and effect relationship between the measure and
a retained or improved business performance; and
. there is an understanding of the various influences on the measure
proposed.
Dwight also explains two other approaches to performance measurement that
are ``the system audit approach'' and ``incident evaluation approach''. These
approaches are based on the idea that definition of performance can be stated in
terms of the change in value of the system. Value is defined here as the
probable future earnings of the system. One favourable aspect of such systems
might be that they capture the impacts of maintenance actions on future
periods.
Das (1994) reports on a different PMS for maintenance developed and used
at the Johnson Space Centre. A performance objective matrix covering selected
performance indicators has been established and shown an overall monthly
project performance score. For each of the selected indicators, the matrix gives
its relative weight within the overall measuring system, the baseline, the target
and current levels of performance, corresponding current performance score
and its weighted total score.
Tsang (1998) adapted the balanced scorecard developed by Kaplan and
Norton (1992) to bring a strategic approach to maintenance performance
measurement. Tsang argues that considering maintenance as a purely tactical
matter is myopic. Maintenance also has a strategic dimension covering issues
such as design of facilities and their maintenance programmes, upgrading the
knowledge and skills of the workforce, and deployment of tools and manpower
to perform maintenance work. Tsang (1998) advocates that the balanced
scorecard, as specifically applied in maintenance, should consist of a mix of
both outcome measures and performance drivers. Outcome measures reflect the
 outcome of past decisions, performance drivers have the power to predict A framework for
future outcomes. managing
Based on the principles of an effective PMS system and the present view of maintenance
PMSs in maintenance, the key design features of a quality performance
measurement system have been identified and presented below:
. Appropriateness of the performance indicators in relation to the
strategic objectives of an organisation. (Selection criteria): each
183
performance measure should have an organisational goal or objective to
feed back.
. Vertical alignment of performance indicators to translate the strategic
objectives into different levels of hierarchy. (Deployment criteria):
Recognition of different hierarchies.
Downloaded by Iowa State University At 12:23 23 January 2019 (PT)

. Balanced view of the maintenance system.

. Integration of objective and subjective measures.
. Employee involvement.
. Cross-functional structure.

Developing a PMS for maintenance

Considering the key features identified above and the complexity of the
maintenance system, the authors found the matrix structure of quality function
deployment (QFD) suitable for developing a PMS that embraces features
identified in the literature.

Quality function deployment

The Japanese developed an approach called quality function deployment (QFD)
to meet customers' requirements throughout the design process, and also in the
design of production systems. QFD uses a type of matrix diagram to present
data and information (Evans and Lindsay, 1996). QFD is also referred to as
``house of quality'' (Bicheno, 1994). The reason for this is that matrices in QFD
fit together to form a house-shaped diagram. A full QFD exercise may make
use of several ``house of quality'' diagrams, forming a sequence that gradually
translate customer requirements into specific manufacturing steps and detailed
manufacturing step requirements. The simplest QFD exercise would use only
one house of quality diagram that seeks to take customer requirements and to
translate them into technical requirements. Although the word ``product'' is
used in the descriptions, QFD is equally applicable in services. The mechanics
of QFD can easily be adapted to local innovation.
QFD has been chosen as the base for this study for several reasons, which
include:
. ``The function deployment'' feature in QFD matrix makes it easy to
incorporate the deployment criteria, which was identified as a key
feature earlier.
 IJOPM . The way it is used and the matrix approach makes it simpler to match
21,1/2 the specific goals with suitable PIs.
. It can hold both objective and subjective data.
. It shows the possible trade-offs between technical characteristics: in this
case these will be various PIs.
184 . It can be modified to employ a balanced view of the maintenance system.

Adaptation of QFD for a PMS in maintenance

Based on the literature and the points discussed above, a framework for a PMS
in maintenance has been developed by the authors at the University of Salford.
The suggested PMS system for maintenance consists of three main stages:
Downloaded by Iowa State University At 12:23 23 January 2019 (PT)

(1) Identification and alignment of key performance indicators (Figure 4):

At this stage, critical elements of performance are determined. Each PI is
assessed and given a score according to its contribution to the overall
business success. This enables organisations to focus attention on the
most critical areas. Through periodic reviews on this matrix, focus can
be shifted to enable the maintenance organisation to respond to the
changing needs of businesses.
(2) Selecting measurement unit specific measures (Figure 5): The sources of
critical elements of performance, which can also be called the
measurement units, are identified and related to the individual PIs. The
matrix at this stage can also be used to track group measures such as
total plant availability.
(3) Measurement and evaluation (Figure 6): This is the stage at which the
measured performance is recorded and assessed against the target for
each measurement unit.
For different hierarchies of maintenance performance levels, Rummler and
Brache's (1995) three levels of performance framework (organisational level,
process level and job/performer level) is used as a base at the three stages.
Therefore there are three interrelated matrixes at every stage.
The following figures and descriptions explain the use and the
implementation of the system.

Stage 1
(1) Form a team of engineers, maintainers, supervisors, users, designers (if
available).
(2) Brainstorm strategic objectives (SO) and sublevel goals related to
maintenance considering the three levels of performance.
(3) Draw up three matrices to match the three levels of performance based
on Figure 4.
 A framework for
managing
maintenance

185
Downloaded by Iowa State University At 12:23 23 January 2019 (PT)

Figure 4.
Identification and
alignment of key
performance indicators
 IJOPM
21,1/2

186
Downloaded by Iowa State University At 12:23 23 January 2019 (PT)

Figure 5.
Selecting measurement
unit specific measures
 A framework for
managing
maintenance

187
Downloaded by Iowa State University At 12:23 23 January 2019 (PT)

Figure 6.
Measurement and
evaluation
 IJOPM (4) Brainstorm the relevant PIs at each hierarchy (organisation, process,
21,1/2 job/performer) by considering the strategic objectives and the
classification for the maintenance performance indicators.
(5) Place the strategic objectives and goals defined into the matrixes and rank
them according to their importance: 1 to 5 (importance rank column).
188 (6) Place the PIs into the appropriate classes and matrices.
(7) Using the bottom left hand of each cell in the central matrix assign
weights of 0, 1 , 3, 9 according to the extent the individual indicator
reflects the achievement of the strategic objectives or goals.
(8) For each cell, multiply the weights in step 6 by the weight for the
strategic objective or the goal in the row. Place the score in the top right
Downloaded by Iowa State University At 12:23 23 January 2019 (PT)

hand of the cell.

(9) Add up the top right hand figures for each column (PI). This gives us a
score which reflects the ability of each indicator to reflect the
achievement of the strategic objectives or goals.
(10) Define the interrelationships between various PIs.
(11) Concentrate on the PIs with higher scores and continue to track the
others periodically.
Stage 2
(1) Determine and list the measurement units (Use criticality analysis or
FMEA).
(2) Going through each cell, decide on whether the PI is applicable or critical
to the specific measurement unit. Cross mark the eliminated cells.
(3) Perform steps 1 and 2 for each matrix developed at stage 1.
(4) Draw the measurement unit specific matrices (Figure 5).
The measurement row in this matrix (Figure 5) is optional and can be used
when summary or group measures are needed. The interrelationships matrix
can also be used at this stage.

Stage 3
(1) Define the interrelationships between various PIs.
(2) Set realistic targets for each measure.
(3) Conduct measurements.
(4) Evaluate results (feed back to the individuals, teams who are involved
and own the measures).
(5) Draw an action plan.
All these figures should be used on the three levels of performance, which are
organisation, process and job/performer levels. At the organisation level, PM
 should include the maintenance organisation's basic functions in relation to A framework for
their interfaces with other departments and the relevant external environment. managing
Maintenance strategies, organisation structure and deployment of resources maintenance
are some examples of areas of concern of PM in maintenance at this level. At
the process level, the maintenance organisation should employ and measure all
the value adding processes that are required to achieve organisation level
goals. Cross-functional processes are the main concern at this level. At the job/ 189
performer level, PM should look at the individuals who perform various
maintenance duties and who own and control the processes.
The matrices provided in the figures are general examples of the use of the
system. Specific and complete examples can be created for situation specific
cases in maintenance.
Downloaded by Iowa State University At 12:23 23 January 2019 (PT)

Case experience
A case study has been conducted to reveal the practical implications of the
framework presented above. In an SME (small and medium enterprise) in the
North West, which manufactures cable management products, interviews have
been carried out with the maintenance personnel, operations manager and the
quality manager. The interviews were designed to assess the validity of the key
features of an effective PMS in maintenance, which were identified earlier in
this paper. The framework has been shown to the interviewees to get their
feedback.
In 1996, the company, under a newly appointed director, realised that they
needed to improve the organisation in terms of market share and overall
performance in order to face the increasing market pressures and competition.
As the framework suggested, they started with developing a mission
statement. The management, aiming to create a ``world class manufacturing''
organisation, started various performance improvement projects, during 1996
onwards.

Organisational level
In line with their mission, they listed their ``organisational level'' objectives as
follows:
. reduce variation within a process;
. increase capacity;
. achieve quick response/global products;
. provide high variety/special products;
. conform to environmental laws/legislation.
The company has a history of financially driven performance management
systems. Because of this, at the time of identifying their organisational level
objectives, they had difficulties in setting non-financial goals for the individual
measures above.
 IJOPM The project team consisted of quality, operations and health and safety
21,1/2 managers at the organisational level; maintenance manager and operators at
the process level; workshop supervisors, maintenance manager and operators
at the job/performer level. The project team identified the paint shop as one of
the most critical activities and therefore chose it as the pilot area for
performance improvement. Although this project was not particularly a
190 maintenance improvement project, they soon realised that many activities
resulting in a low performance were rooted in maintenance. To meet the
organisational level objectives, they identified a number of critical performance
indicators, which are presented in Figure 7. (Figure 7 is the adapted form of the
PMS framework by the company to suit their needs/conditions.)

Process and job/performer level

Downloaded by Iowa State University At 12:23 23 January 2019 (PT)

In the light of the knowledge derived from the literature, clearly it is vital for
any company to identify the value adding processes to achieve its strategic
objectives. Prior to this project, the company had difficulties in identifying
what a successful maintenance organisation should include. The company
recognised and adapted the performance hierarchies with the introduction of
the framework. Through the cross-functional structure of the framework, they
managed to translate the strategic goals and measures into process and job/
performer level PMs and succeeded in establishing top-down, bottom-up
communication as suggested in the framework. The process and job/performer
level performance indicators are given in Figure 7 as identified by the project
team. The company, over the first six months period, achieved an average of
25 per cent improvement in the stated performance measures such as downtime
and waste/rework. However, these improvements in the individual
performance attributes have remained confined to the paint shop area and
therefore have not altogether produced business benefits at the corporate level,
with particular reference to the bottom line of the company, mainly because the
improvement efforts were fragmented and not integrated. Careful examination
of the company's current PMS practice in comparison to the suggested
framework revealed the following points:
. The company successfully implemented most of the elements of stage 1
of the framework.
. It can be suggested that the PMS system within the company provides a
balanced view except for the learning and growth aspect (see Figure 7).
The problem is that efforts to improve these measures under different
categories are fragmented and not integrated.
. The focus is on specific machines and processes only. Although there is
a team effort, the performance of the team is not measured or
appreciated which reduces the level of employee involvement.
. Although most of the improvements and activities under this project are
maintenance related, the project has never been recognised and treated
as such. Rather, it is seen as a general production project. Therefore
 A framework for
managing
maintenance

191
Downloaded by Iowa State University At 12:23 23 January 2019 (PT)

Figure 7.
Deployment of goals/
performance measures
in the case study
company
 IJOPM results have not been fed back to maintenance. The framework suggests
21,1/2 maintenance should own and act on the related measures (stage 3).
. Most maintenance improvements are too subtle to be seen in the bottom
line especially in the short term. However, as long as the improvements
are linked to strategic objectives, the company ensures the contribution
of maintenance to the long-term success.
192
The framework helped the company realise the flaws in their current system. In
this sense, it has been a benchmarking tool. The company is improving their
PMS practice in the light of the points revealed above. They are also
considering the use of a similar PMS for the turret presses, which feed the
entire workshop.
Downloaded by Iowa State University At 12:23 23 January 2019 (PT)

Concluding comments
This paper emphasised the strategic importance of maintenance. The
examination of the PM literature and the current PMS systems in maintenance
showed that the current features of the PMS system for maintenance do not
meet the requirements of an effective PMS system. It also showed that
implementation of such systems in maintenance has never been easy because
of the complex nature of this function. Developing a thorough and effective
PMS for maintenance cannot be achieved with the traditional and narrow view
of PM. Such an effort requires the combination of different tools, discipline and
ideas.
In this paper, a framework for managing maintenance performance has been
introduced to eliminate the difficulties identified in the literature. A case study
has been conducted to show the practical implications of the framework. The
use of the framework in the case study company proved to be useful in two
aspects:
(1) Although the framework might be complicated and may demand extra
resources for small and medium sized companies, the application
showed that it could easily be adapted for the needs of a company (see
Figure 7).
(2) The framework can be used as a benchmarking tool and therefore help
identify weak points in current practices.
From the case study, it can be suggested that some companies may find this
three-stage matrix approach complicated and demanding. However, this
framework has been devised to be a comprehensive PMS that can be used in
maintenance. Since the nature and the organisation of maintenance function
may greatly vary from company to company, this framework should be
regarded as a guide and adapted to the needs of organisations.
The framework has been designed with the nature of maintenance activities in
mind. This does not mean that it can only be used for maintenance PM. On the
contrary, the case study shows that it would be more productive to have an
integrated PMS in which all related functions are considered only if everybody
 understood that this production-led project is also greatly related to maintenance. A framework for
The fact that most organisations cannot afford a separate PM effort for managing
maintenance also justifies the use of this framework in an integrated manner. maintenance
In the light of the case study experience, the framework substantially
contributes to the area of maintenance management by incorporating the key
features of a successful PMS, namely goal deployment, cross-functional structure
and a balanced view of a system. The framework also serves as a guide for the 193
adaptation of such a system for maintenance. The complex appearance of the
framework should not discourage small and medium sized companies from
using it as it can be modified and simplified easily for the needs of different
organisations. The framework can only be as good as the will of the individual
organisation to implement such a system. It can be concluded that such a
framework would be more beneficial for those organisations where company
Downloaded by Iowa State University At 12:23 23 January 2019 (PT)

culture embraces improvements driven by PM. Therefore, this framework would

be easier to implement in organisations where there is some sort of PM system in
place which needs upgrading.
In addition to design of such a system, the problems and factors associated
with the implementation of the system are also important and require further
research.
References
Atkinson, A.A., Waterhouse, J.H. and Wells, R.B. (1997), ``A stakeholder approach to strategic
performance measurement'', Sloan Management Review, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 25-37.
Ben-Daya, M. and Duffuaa, S.O. (1995), ``Maintenance and quality: the missing link'', Journal of
Quality in Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 20-6.
Bicheno, J. (1994), The Quality 50: A Guide Gurus, Tools, Wastes, Techniques and Systems,
PICSIE Books.
Brown, M.G., Hitchcock, D.E. and Willard, M.L. (1994), Why TQM Fails?, Richard D. Irwin, Burr
Ridge, IL.
Chenhall, R.H. (1997), ``Reliance on manufacturing performance measures, total quality
management and organisational performance'', Management Accounting Research, Vol. 8,
pp. 187-206.
Coetzee, J.L. (1997), ``Towards a general maintenance model'', IFRIM '97 Meeting Proceedings,
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University.
Coetzee, J.L. (1998), Maintenance, Maintenance Publishers, Republic of South Africa.
Cupello, J.M. (1994), ``A new paradigm for measuring TQM progress'', Quality Progress, May,
pp. 79-82.
Das, L. (1994), ``Performance measurement takes centre stage at Johnson Space Centre'', Industrial
Engineering, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 24-7.
Dwight, R.A. (1995), ``Concepts for measuring maintenance performance'', New Developments in
Maintenance, Moret Ernst & Young Management Consultants), Netherlands, pp. 109-25.
Edvardsson, B., Thomasson, B. and Ovretveit, J. (1994), Quality of Service, McGraw-Hill, London.
EUREKA (1993), European Benchmark Study on Maintenance, Denmark.
Evans, J.R. and Lindsay, W.M. (1996), The Management and Control of Quality, West Publishing,
Cincinnati, OH.
Hartmann, E. (1992), Successfully Installing TPM in a Non-Japanese Plant, TPM Press.
 IJOPM Hatry, H.P. (1978), ``The status of productivity measurement in public sector'', Public
Administration Review, January/February, pp. 28-33.
21,1/2 Hirano, H. (1997), 5 Pillars of the Visual Workplace: The Sourcebook for 5S Implementation,
Nikkan Kogyo Shimbun, Japan.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1992), ``The balance scorecard-measures that drive performance'',
Harvard Business Review, January-February, pp. 71-9.
194 Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1996), ``Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management
system'', Harvard Business Review, January-February, pp. 75-84.
Maggard, B.N. and Rhyne, D.M. (1992), ``Total productive maintenance: a timely integration of
production and maintenance''. Production and Inventory Management Journal, Fourth
Quarter, pp. 6-11.
Meekings, A. (1995), ``Unlocking the potential of performance measurement: a practical
implementation guide'', Public Money & Management, October-December, pp. 5-12.
Nakajima, S. (1988), Introduction to TPM, Productivity Press, New York, NY.
Downloaded by Iowa State University At 12:23 23 January 2019 (PT)

Oakland, J.S. (1995), Total Quality Management: Text with Cases, Butterworth-Heinemann, New
York, NY.
Ovretveit, J. (1993), Measuring Service Quality, Technical Communication (Publishing),
Hertfordshire.
Pehanich, M. (1995), ``Behind the lines'', Prepared Foods, Vol. 164 No. 12, p. 87.
Pintelon, L. and Van Puyvelde, F. (1997), ``Maintenance performance reporting systems: some
experiences'', Journal of Quality Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 4-15.
Pintelon, L., Gelders, L. and Van Puyvelde, F. (1997), Maintenance Management, Broadcast Book
Services.
Riis, J.O., Luxhoj, J.T. and Thorsteinsson, U. (1997), ``A situational maintenance model'',
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 349-66.
Rose, K.H. (1995), ``A performance measurement model'', Quality Progress, February, pp. 63-6.
Rummler, G.A. and Brache, A.P. (1995), Improving Performance: How to Manage the White
Space on the Organisation Chart, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, CA.
Sharp, J.M., Irani, Z., Kutucuoglu, K. and Erzincanli, F. (1998), ``Integrating TQM and TPM into a
management information system'', paper accepted for publication in International Journal
of Technology Management.
Sharp, J.M., Irani, Z., Wyant, T. and Firth, N. (1997), ``TQM in maintenance to improve
manufacturing performance'', Proceedings of PICMET Conference, Portland, OH.
Sinclair, D. and Zairi, M. (1996), ``Assessing the effectiveness of performance measurement
systems: a case study'', Total Quality Management, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 367-78.
Tsang, A.H.C. (1998), ``A strategic approach to managing maintenance performance'', Journal of
Quality in Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 4 No. 2, , pp. 87-94.
Van Schalkwyk, J. (1998), ``Total quality management and the performance measurement
barrier'', The TQM Magazine, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 124-31.
Webster, C. and Hung, L. (1994), ``Measuring service quality and promoting decentring'', The
TQM Magazine, Vol. 6 No. 5, pp. 50-5.
White, G.P. (1996), ``A survey and taxonomy of strategy-related performance measures of
manufacturing'', International Journal of Operations & Productions Management, Vol. 16
No. 3, pp. 42-62.
Willmott, P. (1994). Total Productive Maintenance: The Western Way, Butterworth-Heinemann,
New York, NY.
Wireman, T. (1990), World Class Maintenance Management, Industrial Press, New York, NY.
 This article has been cited by:

1. WijesingheDananjaya, Dananjaya Wijesinghe, MallawarachchiHarshini, Harshini Mallawarachchi. A

systematic approach for maintenance performance measurement. Journal of Quality in Maintenance
Engineering, ahead of print. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. PhogatSandeep, Sandeep Phogat, GuptaAnil Kumar, Anil Kumar Gupta. Evaluating the elements of
just in time (JIT) for implementation in maintenance by exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis.
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, ahead of print. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
3. KoenigFrank, Frank Koenig, FoundPauline Anne, Pauline Anne Found, KumarManeesh, Maneesh
Kumar. Innovative airport 4.0 condition-based maintenance system for baggage handling DCV systems.
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, ahead of print. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
4. José Roberto Díaz-Reza, Jorge Luis García-Alcaraz, Valeria Martínez-Loya. Structural Equation Models:
Human Factor—Part I 201-234. [Crossref]
Downloaded by Iowa State University At 12:23 23 January 2019 (PT)

5. Demet Özgür-Ünlüakın, İpek Kıvanç, Busenur Türkali, Çağlar Aksezer. A DBN Based Prognosis Model
for a Complex Dynamic System: A Case Study in a Thermal Power Plant 75-84. [Crossref]
6. HassaniMaryam, Maryam Hassani, ShahinArash, Arash Shahin, KheradmandniaManouchehr,
Manouchehr Kheradmandnia. 2018. Service quality function deployment by the C-shaped QFD 3D matrix.
Benchmarking: An International Journal 25:9, 3386-3405. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
7. V. N. Aju kumar, Piyush Gupta, O. P. Gandhi. 2018. Maintenance performance evaluation using an
integrated approach of graph theory, ISM and matrix method. International Journal of System Assurance
Engineering and Management 15. . [Crossref]
8. PhogatSandeep, Sandeep Phogat, GuptaAnil Kumar, Anil Kumar Gupta. 2018. Development of framework
for just-in-time implementation in maintenance. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering 24:4,
488-510. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
9. ChuaShirley Jin Lin, Shirley Jin Lin Chua, ZubbirNajilah Bt, Najilah Bt Zubbir, AliAzlan Shah, Azlan
Shah Ali, Au-YongCheong Peng, Cheong Peng Au-Yong. 2018. Maintenance of high-rise residential
buildings. International Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation 36:2, 137-151. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
10. SemmaEl Mehdi, El Mehdi Semma, MousrijAhmed, Ahmed Mousrij, GziriHassan, Hassan Gziri. 2018.
Preliminary study of the vibration-based maintenance implementation: case study. Journal of Quality in
Maintenance Engineering 24:2, 134-151. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
11. MishraDeepa, Deepa Mishra, GunasekaranAngappa, Angappa Gunasekaran, PapadopoulosThanos,
Thanos Papadopoulos, DubeyRameshwar, Rameshwar Dubey. 2018. Supply chain performance measures
and metrics: a bibliometric study. Benchmarking: An International Journal 25:3, 932-967. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
12. GandhareBalasaheb Shahaji, Balasaheb Shahaji Gandhare, AkarteMilind M., Milind M. Akarte, PatilPradip
P., Pradip P. Patil. 2018. Maintenance performance measurement – a case of the sugar industry. Journal of
Quality in Maintenance Engineering 24:1, 79-100. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
13. ShahinArash, Arash Shahin, Bagheri IrajElham, Elham Bagheri Iraj, Vaez ShahrestaniHossein, Hossein
Vaez Shahrestani. 2018. Developing the C-shaped QFD 3D Matrix for service applications with a case study
in banking services. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 35:1, 109-125. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
 14. Anders Ingwald, Basim Al-Najjar. EcoCon: A System for Monitoring Economic and Technical
Performance of Maintenance 85-97. [Crossref]
15. Mehdi Amine Naji, Ahmed Mousrij. 2018. Fuzzy Performance Measurement System for the Maintenance
Function. MATEC Web of Conferences 200, 00012. [Crossref]
16. Farnam Nematkhah, Sadigh Raissi, Vahidreza Ghezavati. 2017. An integrated fuzzy DEMATEL-fuzzy
ANP approach to nominate diagnostic method and measuring total predictive performance score. Safety
and Reliability 2, 1-25. [Crossref]
17. Benjamin Dehe, David Bamford. 2017. Quality Function Deployment and operational design decisions
– a healthcare infrastructure development case study. Production Planning & Control 28:14, 1177-1192.
[Crossref]
18. Shashank Gupta, Piyush Gupta, Aditya Parida. 2017. Modeling lean maintenance metric using incidence
matrix approach. International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management 25. . [Crossref]
19. YousefliZahra, Zahra Yousefli, NasiriFuzhan, Fuzhan Nasiri, MoselhiOsama, Osama Moselhi. 2017.
Healthcare facilities maintenance management: a literature review. Journal of Facilities Management 15:4,
Downloaded by Iowa State University At 12:23 23 January 2019 (PT)

352-375. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

20. Yunusa-kaltungoAkilu, Akilu Yunusa-kaltungo, SinhaJyoti K., Jyoti K. Sinha. 2017. Effective vibration-
based condition monitoring (eVCM) of rotating machines. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering
23:3, 279-296. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
21. Salih O. Duffuaa, Laith A. Hadidi. 2017. Using QFD to Conduct Performance Assessment for Turnaround
Maintenance in Petrochemical Infrastructure. Journal of Infrastructure Systems 23:1, 05016003. [Crossref]
22. Joseph H. K. Lai, Chun Sing Man. 2017. Developing a performance evaluation scheme for engineering
facilities in commercial buildings: state-of-the-art review. International Journal of Strategic Property
Management 21:1, 41-57. [Crossref]
23. Jayantha P. Liyanage. Perspectives on Performance Assessment and Management 273-290. [Crossref]
24. Miladin Stefanovic, Snezana Nestic, Aleksandar Djordjevic, Dusan Djurovic, Ivan Macuzic, Danijela Tadic,
Marija Gacic. 2017. An assessment of maintenance performance indicators using the fuzzy sets approach
and genetic algorithms. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering
Manufacture 231:1, 15-27. [Crossref]
25. A. M. S. Al-Raqadi, A. Abdul Rahim, M. Masrom, B. S. N. Al-Riyami. 2016. System thinking in single-
and double-loop learning on the perceptions of improving ships’ repair performance. International Journal
of System Assurance Engineering and Management 7:S1, 126-142. [Crossref]
26. Rahul Baidya, Prasanta Kumar Dey, Sadhan Kumar Ghosh, Konstantinos Petridis. 2016. Strategic
maintenance technique selection using combined quality function deployment, the analytic hierarchy
process and the benefit of doubt approach. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology
83. . [Crossref]
27. ModgilSachin, Sachin Modgil, SharmaSanjay, Sanjay Sharma. 2016. Total productive maintenance, total
quality management and operational performance. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering 22:4,
353-377. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
28. Arash Shahin, Elham Bagheri Iraj, Hossein Vaez Shahrestani. 2016. Developing House of Quality by
integrating top roof and side roof matrices and service TRIZ with a case study in banking services. The
TQM Journal 28:4, 597-612. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
 29. Jorge M. Simões, Carlos F. Gomes, Mahmoud M. Yasin. 2016. Changing role of maintenance in business
organisations: measurement versus strategic orientation. International Journal of Production Research 54:11,
3329-3346. [Crossref]
30. . References 573-588. [Crossref]
31. Nayanthara De Silva, Malik Ranasinghe, Chathura Ranjan De Silva. 2016. Risk analysis in maintainability
of high-rise buildings under tropical conditions using ensemble neural network. Facilities 34:1/2, 2-27.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
32. R S Velmurugan, Tarun Dhingra. 2015. Maintenance strategy selection and its impact in maintenance
function. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 35:12, 1622-1661. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
33. Kym Fraser, Hans-Henrik Hvolby, Tzu-Liang (Bill) Tseng. 2015. Maintenance management models: a
study of the published literature to identify empirical evidence. International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management 32:6, 635-664. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
34. Aditya Parida, Uday Kumar, Diego Galar, Christer Stenström. 2015. Performance measurement and
Downloaded by Iowa State University At 12:23 23 January 2019 (PT)

management for maintenance: a literature review. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering 21:1, 2-33.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
35. Damjan Maletič, Viktor Lovrenčič, Matjaž Maletič, Basim Al-Najjar, Boštjan Gomišček. Maintenance
Solutions for Cost-Effective Production: A Case Study in a Paper Mill 375-385. [Crossref]
36. Rahul Baidya, Sadhan Kumar Ghosh. 2015. Model for a Predictive Maintenance System Effectiveness Using
the Analytical Hierarchy Process as Analytical Tool. IFAC-PapersOnLine 48:3, 1463-1468. [Crossref]
37. Emelia Sari, Awaluddin Mohamed Shaharoun, Azanizawati Ma’aram, A. Mohd Yazid. 2015. Sustainable
Maintenance Performance Measures: A Pilot Survey in Malaysian Automotive Companies. Procedia CIRP
26, 443-448. [Crossref]
38. Nahdatul Arm Abd Rani, Mohamad Rizal Baharum, Anis Rosniza Nizam Akbar, Abdul Hadi Nawawi.
2015. Perception of Maintenance Management Strategy on Healthcare Facilities. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences 170, 272-281. [Crossref]
39. Sarel Lavy, John A. Garcia, Phil Scinto, Manish K. Dixit. 2014. Key performance indicators for facility
performance assessment: simulation of core indicators. Construction Management and Economics 32:12,
1183-1204. [Crossref]
40. Rui Francisco Martins Marçal, Kazuo Hatakeyama, Dani Juliano Czelusniak. 2014. Expert System Based
on Fuzzy Rules for Monitoring and Diagnosis of Operation Conditions in Rotating Machines. Advanced
Materials Research 1061-1062, 950-960. [Crossref]
41. Jaakko Tätilä, Pekka Helkiö, Jan Holmström. 2014. Exploring the performance effects of performance
measurement system use in maintenance process. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering 20:4,
377-401. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
42. Adnan Hj. Bakri, Abdul Rahman Abdul Rahim, Mohd Yusof Noordin, Widya Kartini Mohd Razali,
Mohd.Tohid Mohd Zul-Waqar, Ismail Shaiful Anwar. 2014. A Review on the Total Productive
Maintenance (TPM) Conceptual Framework. Applied Mechanics and Materials 660, 1043-1051. [Crossref]
43. Adnan Hj. Bakri, Abdul Rahman Abdul Rahim, Mohd Yusof Noordin, Widya Kartini Mohd. Razali,
Mohd.Tohid Mohd Zul-Waqar, Ismail Shaiful Anwar. 2014. Issues in Total Productive Maintenance
(TPM) Implementation: Justification of Employing Case Study Methodology. Applied Mechanics and
Materials 660, 988-994. [Crossref]
 44. Adnan Hj. Bakri, Abdul Rahman Abdul Rahim, Noordin bin Mohd Yusof. 2014. Maintenance
Management: Rationale of TPM as the Research Focus. Applied Mechanics and Materials 670-671,
1575-1582. [Crossref]
45. Christer Stenström, Aditya Parida. 2014. Measuring performance of linear assets considering their spatial
extension. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering 20:3, 276-289. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
46. Damjan Maletič, Matjaž Maletič, Basim Al-Najjar, Boštjan Gomišček. 2014. The role of maintenance in
improving company's competitiveness and profitability. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management
25:4, 441-456. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
47. Lavy Sarel, A. Garcia John, K. Dixit Manish. 2014. KPIs for facility's performance assessment, Part I:
identification and categorization of core indicators. Facilities 32:5/6, 256-274. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
48. Lavy Sarel, A. Garcia John, K. Dixit Manish. 2014. KPIs for facility's performance assessment, Part II:
identification of variables and deriving expressions for core indicators. Facilities 32:5/6, 275-294. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
49. Adriaan Van Horenbeek, Liliane Pintelon. 2014. Development of a maintenance performance measurement
Downloaded by Iowa State University At 12:23 23 January 2019 (PT)

framework—using the analytic network process (ANP) for maintenance performance indicator selection.
Omega 42:1, 33-46. [Crossref]
50. Emelia Sari, Awaluddin Bin Mohamed Shaharoun, Azanizawati Bt Ma'aram. 2013. Preliminary Framework
of Sustainable Maintenance Performance Measurement Systems for Automotive Companies. Advanced
Materials Research 845, 590-595. [Crossref]
51. S Oke. Maintenance management in the 21st century 907-930. [Crossref]
52. Uday Kumar, Diego Galar, Aditya Parida, Christer Stenström, Luis Berges. 2013. Maintenance
performance metrics: a state‐of‐the‐art review. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering 19:3,
233-277. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
53. Joseph H. K. Lai. 2013. An Analysis of Maintenance Demand, Manpower, and Performance of Hotel
Engineering Facilities. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 37:3, 426-444. [Crossref]
54. Rungchat Chompu-inwai, Rungthip Diaotrakun, Trasapong Thaiupathump. Key indicators for
maintenance performance measurement: The aircraft galley and associated equipment manufacturer case
study 844-849. [Crossref]
55. Adnan Hj. Bakri, Abdul Rahman Abdul Rahim, Noordin Mohd Yusof. 2013. Total Productive
Maintenance: Competing or Complementary to other Initiatives?. Applied Mechanics and Materials 315,
472-476. [Crossref]
56. Mandeep Kaur, Kanwarpreet Singh, Inderpreet Singh Ahuja. 2012. An evaluation of the synergic
implementation of TQM and TPM paradigms on business performance. International Journal of
Productivity and Performance Management 62:1, 66-84. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
57. Nayanthara De Silva, Malik Ranasinghe, C.R. De Silva. 2012. Risk factors affecting building maintenance
under tropical conditions. Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction 17:3, 235-252.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
58. P. Weber, G. Medina-Oliva, C. Simon, B. Iung. 2012. Overview on Bayesian networks applications for
dependability, risk analysis and maintenance areas. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 25:4,
671-682. [Crossref]
59. Yohanes Kristianto, Mian M. Ajmal, Maqsood Sandhu. 2012. Adopting TQM approach to achieve
customer satisfaction. The TQM Journal 24:1, 29-46. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
 60. D. Maletič, M. Maletič, B. Al-Najjar, B. Gomišček. 2012. The role of maintenance regarding improving
product quality and company's profitability: A case study. IFAC Proceedings Volumes 45:31, 7-12. [Crossref]
61. Matloub Hussain, Loukas Tsironis, Mian M. Ajmal. 2011. A QFD strategy for improving customer
satisfaction: case study of telecom companies of Pakistan. Asian Journal on Quality 12:3, 282-295.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
62. Nik Elyna Myeda, Syahrul Nizam Kamaruzzaman, Michael Pitt. 2011. Measuring the performance of office
buildings maintenance management in Malaysia. Journal of Facilities Management 9:3, 181-199. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
63. A.R. Rezaei, T. Çelik, Y. Baalousha. 2011. Performance measurement in a quality management system.
Scientia Iranica 18:3, 742-752. [Crossref]
64. J.M. Simões, C.F. Gomes, M.M. Yasin. 2011. A literature review of maintenance performance
measurement. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering 17:2, 116-137. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
65. Umar Al‐Turki. 2011. A framework for strategic planning in maintenance. Journal of Quality in
Maintenance Engineering 17:2, 150-162. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by Iowa State University At 12:23 23 January 2019 (PT)

66. Halim Mad Lazim, T. Ramayah. 2010. Maintenance strategy in Malaysian manufacturing companies: a
total productive maintenance (TPM) approach. Business Strategy Series 11:6, 387-396. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
67. Yahia Zare Mehrjerdi. 2010. Applications and extensions of quality function deployment. Assembly
Automation 30:4, 388-403. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
68. Sarel Lavy, John A. Garcia, Manish K. Dixit. 2010. Establishment of KPIs for facility performance
measurement: review of literature. Facilities 28:9/10, 440-464. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
69. Enzo Bivona, Giovan Battista Montemaggiore. 2010. Understanding short- and long-term implications of
“myopic” fleet maintenance policies: a system dynamics application to a city bus company. System Dynamics
Review 26:3, 195-215. [Crossref]
70. Yahia Zare Mehrjerdi. 2010. Quality function deployment and its extensions. International Journal of
Quality & Reliability Management 27:6, 616-640. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
71. Imad Alsyouf. 2009. Maintenance practices in Swedish industries: Survey results. International Journal of
Production Economics 121:1, 212-223. [Crossref]
72. Saara A. Brax, Katrin Jonsson. 2009. Developing integrated solution offerings for remote diagnostics.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management 29:5, 539-560. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
73. Shad Dowlatshahi. 2009. The maquiladora industry and equipment maintenance: an industry-based
perspective. Production Planning & Control 20:3, 227-241. [Crossref]
74. T. Ahonen, V. Ojanen, M. Reunanen, M. Lanne. Utilisation of product lifetime information across
organizational boundaries in the development of maintenance services 650-654. [Crossref]
75. Aditya Parida. Maintenance performance assessment (MPA) framework for engineering asset 1351-1354.
[Crossref]
76. E. Levrat, E. Thomas, B. Iung. 2008. Odds-based decision-making tool for opportunistic production-
maintenance synchronization. International Journal of Production Research 46:19, 5263-5287. [Crossref]
77. Carmen Carnero, Sheila Delgado. 2008. Maintenance audit by means of value analysis technique and
decision rules. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering 14:4, 329-342. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
 78. Mouloud Aoudia, Oumhani Belmokhtar, Gilles Zwingelstein. 2008. Economic impact of maintenance
management ineffectiveness of an oil and gas company. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering 14:3,
237-261. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
79. I.P.S. Ahuja, J.S. Khamba. 2008. Total productive maintenance: literature review and directions.
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 25:7, 709-756. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
80. Jose A. Carnevalli, Paulo Cauchick Miguel. 2008. Review, analysis and classification of the literature on
QFD—Types of research, difficulties and benefits. International Journal of Production Economics 114:2,
737-754. [Crossref]
81. Arash Shahin, Payam Nikneshan. 2008. Integration of CRM and QFD. The TQM Journal 20:1, 68-86.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
82. José Antonio Carnevalli, Paulo Augusto Cauchick Miguel. 2007. Revisão, análise e classificação da literatura
sobre o QFD: tipos de pesquisa, dificuldades de uso e benefícios do método. Gestão & Produção 14:3,
557-579. [Crossref]
83. I.P.S. Ahuja, J.S. Khamba. 2007. An evaluation of TPM implementation initiatives in an Indian
Downloaded by Iowa State University At 12:23 23 January 2019 (PT)

manufacturing enterprise. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering 13:4, 338-352. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
84. Aditya Parida, Gopi Chattopadhyay. 2007. Development of a multi‐criteria hierarchical framework for
maintenance performance measurement (MPM). Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering 13:3,
241-258. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
85. Basim Al-Najjar. 2007. The lack of maintenance and not maintenance which costs: A model to describe
and quantify the impact of vibration-based maintenance on company's business. International Journal of
Production Economics 107:1, 260-273. [Crossref]
86. Thomas Edouard, Levrat Eric, Iung Benoît, Monnin Maxime. ‘ODDS Algorithm’-Based Opportunity-
Triggered Preventive Maintenance with Production Policy 783-788. [Crossref]
87. Imad Alsyouf. 2007. The role of maintenance in improving companies’ productivity and profitability.
International Journal of Production Economics 105:1, 70-78. [Crossref]
88. Amik Garg, S.G. Deshmukh. 2006. Maintenance management: literature review and directions. Journal of
Quality in Maintenance Engineering 12:3, 205-238. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
89. Imad Alsyouf. 2006. Measuring maintenance performance using a balanced scorecard approach. Journal of
Quality in Maintenance Engineering 12:2, 133-149. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
90. THOMAS Edouard, LEVRAT Eric, IUNG Benoît, MONNIN Maxime. 2006. ‘ODDS ALGORITHM’-
BASED OPPORTUNITY-TRIGGERED PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE WITH PRODUCTION
POLICY. IFAC Proceedings Volumes 39:13, 783-788. [Crossref]
91. S Oke. Maintenance Management in the 21st Century 26-1-26-21. [Crossref]
92. Shamsuddin Ahmed, Masjuki Hj. Hassan, Zahari Taha. 2005. TPM can go beyond maintenance: excerpt
from a case implementation. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering 11:1, 19-42. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
93. Angel M. Gento. 2004. Decision rules for a maintenance database. Journal of Quality in Maintenance
Engineering 10:3, 210-220. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
94. Basim Al-Najjar, Imad Alsyouf. 2004. Enhancing a company's profitability and competitiveness using
integrated vibration-based maintenance: A case study. European Journal of Operational Research 157:3,
643-657. [Crossref]
 95. Chuenusa Cholasuke, Ramnik Bhardwa, Jiju Antony. 2004. The status of maintenance management in
UK manufacturing organisations: results from a pilot survey. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering
10:1, 5-15. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
96. Angel M. Gento, Alfonso Redondo. 2003. Rough sets and maintenance in a production line. Expert Systems
20:5, 271-279. [Crossref]
97. Lai-Kow Chan, Ming-Lu Wu. 2002. Quality function deployment: A literature review. European Journal
of Operational Research 143:3, 463-497. [Crossref]
98. Kijpokin Kasemsap. The Role of Lean Production on Organizational Performance 358-388. [Crossref]
99. Kijpokin Kasemsap. The Role of Lean Production on Organizational Performance 1578-1610. [Crossref]
Downloaded by Iowa State University At 12:23 23 January 2019 (PT)