Maintenance decision-making and its relevance in

engineering asset management

Sagar More1, Rabin Tuladhar2, Daniel Grainger3, William Milne4
Department of Engineering, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia
2Corresponding author

E-mail: 1sagar.more@my.jcu.edu.au, 2rabin.tuladhar@jcu.edu.au, 3daniel.grainger@jcu.edu.au,

4william.milne@rocktech.com.au

Received 4 October 2023; accepted 3 March 2024; published online 25 March 2024
DOI https://doi.org/10.21595/marc.2024.23687
Copyright © 2024 Sagar More, et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract. Engineering asset management (EAM) has received a lot of attention in the last few
decades. Despite this, industries struggle to identify the best strategies for maintaining assets. The
decision-making around selecting a relevant maintenance strategy generally considers factors like
risk, performance and cost. Risk management is, usually, largely subjective and industries
consequently make investments in a subjective manner, making the allocation of budget
unstructured and arbitrary. Generally, industries focus only on either overt risks or basic
performance of assets, thus creating uncertainties in the decision-making process. Recently,
however, maintenance decision-making has evolved from a subjective assessment, chiefly
dependent on expert opinions, to utilizing live-data-sensor technology. The attitude towards
component failures and how to address them has changed drastically with the evolution of
maintenance strategies. Additionally, the emergence and use of several tools and models have
assisted the drafting and implementation of effective maintenance strategies. These advancements,
however, have only considered discrete parameters while modelling, instead of using an integrated
approach. One of the primary factors which can address this shortfall and make the decision-
making process more robust is the economic element. To enable an effective decision-making
process, it is imperative to consider quantifiable determinants and include economic parameters
while drafting maintenance policies. This paper reviews maintenance decision-making strategies
in EAM and also highlights its relevance through an economic lens.
Keywords: engineering asset management, maintenance strategies, maintenance management,
maintenance decision-making framework, risk assessment, economic model.

1. Introduction

The fourth industrial revolution has given a new dimension to decision-making in optimising
the operational efficiency of industries. This phase was driven by technological revolutions and
by focusing on the implications of reforming decisions in all domains of an industry as opposed
to only a few areas of the industry [1]. One of the domains which isn’t given its due importance
is asset management (AM). Today, industries are transforming to meet the competitive needs of
the market with the help of industrial equipment and machinery. Ensuring that these assets perform
at an optimal level and establishing processes to extract maximum value from them is essential to
a firm’s growth and can impact profit-making to a huge degree. Firms, however, have floundered
to understand the influence that good AM exercises over company performance. AM is usually
relegated to the background in company policies, and firms fail to comprehend the impact good
AM can make in not only generating substantial financial yields but also in deflecting certain risks,
increasing the rate of output, and aiding overall company sustainability.
AM has established its importance in various types of industries. Process industries like oil
and gas refineries, chemical plants, nuclear plants, mining industries, etc., are in the continuous
production process, and here a reliable AM approach is critical to controlling business risk. The
mining industry is a pivotal example of an industrial sector were establishing and implementing
appropriate AM activities are imperative to efficient and productive functioning. It is prone to
MAINTENANCE, RELIABILITY AND CONDITION MONITORING 1
 MAINTENANCE DECISION-MAKING AND ITS RELEVANCE IN ENGINEERING ASSET MANAGEMENT.
SAGAR MORE, RABIN TULADHAR, DANIEL GRAINGER, WILLIAM MILNE

many uncertain and natural events, thus making its associated brand of issues and challenges
complex and multidimensional. The mining industry operates in complex environments
characterised by significant intrinsic uncertainties [2]. History has shown that an implemented
solution at one mining site does not yield the same result at another. The reasons for this can often
be linked to local conditions, culture and available resources which can substantially vary from
site to site [3]. Consequently, the intensity of AM in this industry changes with respect to the
mentality and approach towards risk management. Additionally, predicting future events is
difficult due to knowledge gaps, system complexities and human fallibilities [4]. On account of
the complexity and multi-dimensionality of the problems, the mining industry’s decision-making
is generally based on certain integrated factors, for instance, risk analysis which is based on criteria
like detectability, severity and occurrence of a failure mode. These criteria further help in
understanding the availability, reliability, and maintainability of the systems. In the mining
industry, selecting a maintenance strategy is a more challenging task in the decision-making
process, because the stoppage of equipment leads to the stoppage of the entire manufacturing line.
In such cases, the decision methods should focus on the system’s availability. Currently, in the
mining industry decision-making processes for asset investment are largely qualitative, with assets
being monitored and managed via qualitative FMEA tools or other risk-based methods.
Assets can be classified in 5 categories – human, information, financial, intangible, and
physical, which must be managed holistically to achieve the organisational strategic plan. [5]. The
Asset Management Council in Australia defines AM as the management of physical assets’ life
cycle to achieve specific outputs and goals in an enterprise [6]. In the context of Engineering Asset
Management (EAM), Davis [7] defines AM as the “continuous process improvement strategy for
improving the availability, safety, reliability and longevity of plant assets, i.e., systems, facilities,
equipment and processes”. EAM focuses on optimising assets through every stage of their life
cycle including planning, acquisition, operation and eventual disposal as shown in Fig. 1.
Implementing good AM strategies through the different stages of an asset’s life cycle can extend
its output and life and ensures that maximum value is extracted from it [8].

4.
1. Planning
Disposal

2.
3. Operate
Acquisitio
& Maintain
n

Fig. 1. Asset lifecycle management

AM is not a new concept, as assets were always considered a hallmark of human activities.
However, despite references from earlier times, organisations still struggle with the execution of
AM [9]. Taking into consideration the importance of AM in the organisation management system,
the first edition of Publicly Available Specification (PAS 55) was drafted and published in 2004
[10]. PAS 55, subsequently revised in 2008, was accepted by around 50 organisations from 15
different industry sectors in 10 countries [11]. Parallel to this, ISO project committee 251 (PC251)
published the first international Am standard, ISO 55000, in 2014 [12]. The standards were based
on the foundation of PAS 55-2008. AM is a reasonably comprehensive and challenging discipline
to be consistently implemented in industries [13]. The American organisation, ISA
(Instrumentation, Systems and Automation Society), has also drafted standards for AM, 2 of
2 ISSN ONLINE 2669-2961
 MAINTENANCE DECISION-MAKING AND ITS RELEVANCE IN ENGINEERING ASSET MANAGEMENT.
SAGAR MORE, RABIN TULADHAR, DANIEL GRAINGER, WILLIAM MILNE

which - ISA-88 and ISA-95, have become international standards of significant importance in the
AM sector [14]. The introduction of these standards provided industries with an internationally
recognised terminology and framework for AM [15].
AM, until now, was considered only a mundane discipline. Perhaps it is time to start viewing
it as a philosophy that needs to be transferred across different chains of hierarchy in an
organisation. This helps create awareness across the organisation in understanding the need to
optimise the performance of engineering assets, thus synchronising the organisation’s goals with
AM goals. AM aims to enable an organisation to realise value from its assets as it pursues its
objectives while balancing financial, environmental and social costs, risk, level and quality of
service, and asset performance [9]. A sense of maturity is developing around the importance and
significance of AM, which ensures reliability around the performance of the asset and takes us
one step closer to the organisational targets. It plays a vital role in the business management of
many industries, primarily to meet the ever-changing market conditions, maintain asset health,
revise production targets and influence many other variables which can generate financial
uncertainty and increase business risk. Understanding these business risks and how industries can
use them to drive sound decision-making practices, minimise downtime, enable risk control,
improvise operational efficiency, enable defect elimination, and increase overall market
competitiveness has become strategically important [16]. The AM system plans and controls
asset-related activities and their relationships to ensure that asset performance meets the intended
competitive strategy of the organisation [17]. It is essential to align the AM system with
organisational strategies and planning since AM works within an integrated framework of
multi-disciplinary collaboration where the organisation, operation planning and performance are
integrated and evaluated for continuous improvement [15].
The challenges in AM in the current industrial era generally include organisational challenges
which entail the integration of all stakeholders across the organisation hierarchy for successful
implementation and improvement of AM practice. Organisational challenges arise because of the
organisation structural changes, which further give rise to decision-making challenges related to
assets. Effective decision-making is necessary for predicting possible issues in asset life cycle and
taking pre-emptive measures to combat the same, tailoring AM to industry specific issues,
increasing asset lifetime to extract maximum value and aligning AM to support new emerging
business models. For effective decision-making, metrics like information sharing, financial
understanding, broader perspectives towards the organisational goals, risk assessment, etc. are
imperative and which, if not tackled properly, can create challenges in the AM practice [18]. In
financial considerations, cost challenges can change the decision-making dimensions and
therefore it is necessary to invest the available budget wisely, which is again a part of effective
decision-making. Thus, the focus of this paper will be on discussing the different strategies, tools
and methods used for decision-making in AM.
The maintenance decision-making process in AM plays a crucial role in achieving
organisational targets and objectives. To achieve maximum operational efficiency, the industry
deals with issues by using various models as decision-making tools. Approaching maintenance
management strategically and systematically has become essential for making the right choices
[5]. However, it is critical to select relevant maintenance strategies, given that every strategy has
its own strength and weakness, and that one-third of all maintenance costs are wasted as the result
of unnecessary or unsuitable maintenance activities [19].
This paper reviews existing literature to summarise the existing strategies considered in
making decisions in AM, highlights lacunae in the same and posits new strategies which can aid
in efficient AM. Section 2 outlines the development and evolution of maintenance strategies in
AM. Section 3 elaborates the primary characteristics of decision making in industrial maintenance.
Section 4 further illustrates the different tools and methods involved in the maintenance
decision-making process and identifies the critical factors associated with it. Finally, Section 5
critically reviews literature which highlights the significance of using an economic perspective in
maintenance decision-making methods of EAM.
MAINTENANCE, RELIABILITY AND CONDITION MONITORING 3
 MAINTENANCE DECISION-MAKING AND ITS RELEVANCE IN ENGINEERING ASSET MANAGEMENT.
SAGAR MORE, RABIN TULADHAR, DANIEL GRAINGER, WILLIAM MILNE

2. Evolution of maintenance strategies

According to Moubray [20], prior to 1950, maintenance strategy was not well defined, poorly
executed and was largely reactive (implemented only in response to an event), leading to increased
equipment downtime. The rapid change in manufacturing demands made the evolution of asset
maintenance strategies critical to optimise the asset’s life cycle.
Fig. 2 depicts the evolution of maintenance strategies. The initial approach to maintenance
before 1950 was known as “run to failure” or corrective maintenance (CM) because of its reactive
approach to any failure. According to the European Standard EN 13306:2010, CM is defined as
“maintenance carried out after fault recognition and intended to put an item into a state in which
it can perform a required function” [21]. CM strategies have limitations such as, increasing
downtime hours, and no possibility to optimise the operational performance with respect to cost
and risk. Although most industries revised this strategy and gravitated to other maintenance
strategies, this particular maintenance approach is still applied to low-risk engineering systems
due to its low implementation cost [22].

Fig. 2. Evolution of maintenance strategies [13]

In an attempt to minimise avoidable CM costs, preventative maintenance (PM) was employed

with EN 13306:2010 defining it as “maintenance carried out at predetermined intervals or
according to prescribed criteria and intended to reduce the probability of failure or the degradation
of the functioning of an item” [21]. PM encouraged maintenance practices before an actual failure
event, thus preventing the need for corrective measures and ensuring optimal performance with
respect to cost and risk, making it a better alternative to CM. This approach employs planned
strategies implemented at specific intervals of time to ensure continuous operational performance
in the case of high-risk engineering systems. PM is the most common strategy applied in the
industry and is further classified as time-based PM and condition-based PM [22].
Time-based maintenance dominated the second generation of the evolution of maintenance
strategies. It entails administering maintenance of assets at regular intervals, irrespective of their
current state [22]. Certain types of complex systems are difficult to monitor, and methods that
consider only the condition of assets require substantive data, which might not be available or
difficult to procure [22]. In such cases, a regular time-based preventive approach can be more
beneficial. Additionally, specific components reflect defective symptoms prior to the failure event,
for example, when a component is inspected for the defect and replaced to prevent the failure. In
such cases, time-based inspections also benefit the overall maintenance system, reducing costs
and decreasing risks [22]. At the same time, as mentioned earlier in this section, preventive
maintenance occurring at regular fixed intervals like time-based inspections or maintenance leads
to planned downtime [23].
The third generation of the evolution focused on condition-based maintenance (CBM). CBM
is defined as “preventive maintenance which includes a combination of condition monitoring and
inspection and/or testing, analysis and the ensuing maintenance actions” [21]. This maintenance
policy works on a predictive approach. CBM provides options to perform maintenance activities
4 ISSN ONLINE 2669-2961
 MAINTENANCE DECISION-MAKING AND ITS RELEVANCE IN ENGINEERING ASSET MANAGEMENT.
SAGAR MORE, RABIN TULADHAR, DANIEL GRAINGER, WILLIAM MILNE

before the occurrence of system/component failure, thus reducing the uncertainty of maintenance
activities. The primary focus of CBM is fault detection, diagnostics, degradation monitoring and
failure prediction [22].
The fourth generation in the evolution of maintenance strategies addressed risk management
and reliability of the systems. Predictive Maintenance (PredM) dominates this fourth generation
and entails risk-based and reliability-centred maintenance (RCM) strategies. RCM keeps
reliability of the asset at centre and thus leads to the formal definition of reliability-centred
maintenance by Moubray [20] as “a process used to determine the maintenance requirements of
any physical asset in its operating context”. The results of applying RCM has been highlighted in
a case study by Afefy, et al. [24] based on data of a Fayoum Sugar Works Company in Egypt,
which produces Sugar. The results show that on applying corrective and preventive maintenance
the downtime decreased by 55.77 % and 52.17 %, respectively, which further lead to a saving in
the total maintenance cost by 52.17 %. It was shown that the proposed RCM saved about
6.19×106 L. E (Egyptian Pound) in total maintenance cost. Moreover, the results revealed that the
availability increase from 57.1 % to 90.74 % and reliability increased from 99.73 % to 99.88 %
[24].
Maintenance strategies are optimised with the help of different tools such as Machine
Learning, Artificial Intelligence, and many others to improve condition monitoring. However,
PredM can prove costly as it encompasses hiring and training technical experts and staff, setting
up and integrating comprehensive software packages into the overall process and is economically
viable to be used only for high-risk systems. Implementation of PredM can be justified by the
value added to the overall process. Although PredM is an expensive tool to employ, it is
advantageous to implement it in combination with other maintenance strategies to extract
maximum benefit for the industry [22].
Maintenance data analytics is another perspective of maintenance strategic planning and can
be categorised in 4 phases as shown in Fig.3. Descriptive analytics answers the question ‘What
happened?’ by providing information about previous maintenance operations. Diagnostic data
analysis can respond to ‘Why it happened?’ by identifying causes. Predictive analytics estimates
future events (what will happen, when?) by learning from historical maintenance data (possibly
in real-time). Prescriptive analytics can respond to ‘What should be done?’ by providing
actionable recommendations for decision making and improving and/or optimizing forthcoming
maintenance processes. Both descriptive and diagnostic analytics methods are reactive while
predictive and prescriptive analytics approaches are proactive.

Diagnostic Prescriptive
Analytics Analytics
• What • What will
happened? • Why did it happen? • What shall
happen? we do?

Descriptive Predictive
Analytics Analytics

Fig. 3. Maintenance analytics phases

In summary, devising and choosing maintenance strategies can involve multiple dimensions
and perspectives. However, most industries refer to a basic classification system. Fig. 4 explains
the general classification of maintenance strategy types.

3. Elements involved in industrial maintenance decision-making

The decision-making process in AM focuses on optimising, reducing and enhancing cost, risk
MAINTENANCE, RELIABILITY AND CONDITION MONITORING 5
 MAINTENANCE DECISION-MAKING AND ITS RELEVANCE IN ENGINEERING ASSET MANAGEMENT.
SAGAR MORE, RABIN TULADHAR, DANIEL GRAINGER, WILLIAM MILNE

and performance, respectively. All three variables are equally important and critical to manage.
Finding the right balance among these variables requires planning. Optimising cost helps in
managing the budget, reducing risk helps in increasing the life cycle of an asset and enhancing
performance helps in meeting the ever-increasing demands of the competitive market. Even in this
era of transformation, some companies operate in a survival mode and still approach the subject
of AM reactively. The industry lacks the urge for continuous improvement, which is one of the
essential elements for the successful implementation of the AM system. Its focus predominantly
lies around cost saving, thus ignoring the investment in relevant maintenance strategies. This is
very generic as every organisation is bound by an annual maintenance budget that must be utilised
wisely. To use the available budget effectively, organisations opt for scheduling maintenance
strategies without analysing the current state of the assets. This decision-making approach leads
to more expenses. Scheduled maintenance reduces the risk and enhances performance, but the cost
gets affected, thus disturbing the balance between these variables. A potential risk, if detected in
time, can save a lot of downtime and maintenance cost and the definition of this potential risk is
very subjective. This gives rise to uncertainties in the decision-making process thus affecting the
performance. Thus, prioritising and attending the risk with respect to criticality can not only
enhance the performance but can also help in cost saving and, at the same time, help in balancing
these variables.

Fig. 4. General classification of maintenance strategy types

Generally, the decision-making in a maintenance management process is divided into two

parts: the definition of the strategy and the strategy implementation. The critical element is to align
the initial part, i.e., defining the strategy, with the overall business strategy, which aids the success
of the maintenance activities in an organisation. Maintenance objectives derived from the business
plan act as an input in defining the maintenance strategy process. The second part of the process
focuses on implementing the selected strategy. It reflects an organisation’s ability to deal with
maintenance strategy implementation problems and minimising the direct maintenance cost [25].
Table 1 highlights some significant work carried out in the field of maintenance decision-making.
The senior management plays a vital role in defining the above discussed maintenance
activities. The maintenance management process can be streamlined more with effective
decision-making. The organisation’s senior management strategies should be transparent at every
level of the hierarchy, thus aiming for an efficient implementation of the planned strategy. The
decision-making process depends on various critical factors, which differ with the industry type
and stakeholder needs, as highlighted in Fig. 5.

6 ISSN ONLINE 2669-2961

 MAINTENANCE DECISION-MAKING AND ITS RELEVANCE IN ENGINEERING ASSET MANAGEMENT.
SAGAR MORE, RABIN TULADHAR, DANIEL GRAINGER, WILLIAM MILNE

Table 1. Significant work carried out in the field of maintenance decision-making

Author Contribution Research gaps
Maintenance planning
Developed a collaborative platform between
It is challenging to implement such a
Wan, et al. the production and maintenance departments
collaborative platform for sharing information
[26] for ease of communication and planning
between different stakeholders of the system
maintenance activities
in an industry, as there might be loss of
Developed an ontology-based virtual
informative data due to lack of training,
Terkaj, et al. platform that consisted of a multi-layered
negligence by operators, feeding of wrong
[27] integration of the information related to
information, and other human error
hardware, software, human resources, etc
Selecting a maintenance strategy
The model assumes the repair and
Developed a bi-objective mathematical replacement time as negligible whereas
Jamshidi
model for preventive repair and replacement repairing and replacement activities are
and Esfahani
schedules to minimise the total cost and generally time consuming thus making the
[28]
maximise the reliability of the entire system preventive and corrective maintenance
inefficient from cost optimisation
Generated a maintenance policy selection
model with three phases including
identification of the critical system, further
The limitation of the model lies within the
Ding, et al. failure modes that are identified by Failure
expert’s judgement and the accuracy of the
[29] Mode Effect and Analysis (FMEA) and
information provided by them
Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) to
identify an optimal maintenance policy that
can minimise the failures
Maintenance management
Although their paper focused on proactive
decision-making to support condition-based
Focus on real-time sensor data for
maintenance and embed the e-maintenance
monitoring machine conditions to improve
concept, only the optimisation of the time
Bousdekis, proactive maintenance strategy. The
factor is justified. Other elements of decision-
et al. [30] monitoring and data analysis framework
making like spare parts inventory, logistics,
method was also used to estimate predictions
production targets, etc. Along with the cost
of failure
associated with the same need to be
considered
Propose a new approach to Ageing
Probabilistic Safety Assessment (APSA)
modelling by incorporating effectiveness of
maintenance, efficiency test and ageing
Martón, et The work focuses only on one critical
factors as inputs. It is intended to support
al. [31] component, not the entire system or plant
risk-informed decision making and their
research focuses on the critical equipment of
Nuclear Power Plants within the framework
of the Risk-Informed Decision-Making
Focus on Condition-based predictive
maintenance (CBPM) and works with the
Fuzzy Inference System in a multi-objective
Estimates of detectability (d) and prognostic
optimisation framework. It applies the
abilities (p) are based on expert elicitation
genetic algorithm by using failure rate;
Verma, et al. which are further incorporated in the
preventive repair rate; corrective repair rate;
[32] optimisation model. Due to this subjective
costs of detectability, prognostic, logistics
approach, the risk of uncertainty arises in the
and failure etc. As inputs for providing
decision-making process
several options for maintenance decision
maker and suitable Condition Monitoring
System

MAINTENANCE, RELIABILITY AND CONDITION MONITORING 7

 MAINTENANCE DECISION-MAKING AND ITS RELEVANCE IN ENGINEERING ASSET MANAGEMENT.
SAGAR MORE, RABIN TULADHAR, DANIEL GRAINGER, WILLIAM MILNE

Maintenance
Strategy
Selection

Maintenance Failure
Performance prediction/de
measurement gradation

Maintenance Modelling
System
decision-making Maintenance
design
critical factors planning

Warranty
Spare parts
and
Provisioning
Maintenance

Risk
management
in
Maintenance

Fig. 5. Maintenance decision-making critical factors

Along with the above critical factors of decision-making, Almeida and Bohoris [33]
considered the following eight elements as the basic ingredients in a decision-making process:
a) Elements like conditions and basic laws which define the natural calamities over which the
decision maker has no control; b) Set of possible actions are derived after identifying the critical
factor or analysing the risk which provides the decision maker with certain set of possible
maintenance actions; c) Consequences are analysed by risk assessment framework either
qualitatively or quantitatively to give an overview of the outcome of the decision; d) Function of
loss and utility quantifies each outcome related to the derived set of actions; e) Multi Attribute
utility theory is related to the multi criteria decision-making; f) Elicitation and consistency is based
on how robust the decision-making model selected by the user is based on the consequences;
g) Optimisation is the ultimate goal of the decision making process; h) Sensitivity Analysis helps
in building a robust decision-making model and removing any uncertain factors from the process.

4. Tools and methods used in maintenance decision-making

Industries can utilise several tools and methods to assist maintenance decision making.
Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) aims to determine the best solution by using more than
one criterion in the decision-making process. The implementation of MCDM has experienced a
significant rise over the last several decades. It has helped develop new methods and improve old
ones in different domains. The evolution of technology has created an awareness for developing
more complex decision analysis methods. Velasquez and Hester [34] focused on developing a new
approach to decision analysis by combining MCDM methods. Considering the same,
Triantaphyllou, et al. [35] proposed the use of a decision method, the Analytic Hierarchy Process
(AHP), considering four maintenance criteria: cost, reparability, reliability and availability. The
methodology focuses on sensitivity analysis, which further investigates the robustness of the
selected utility function by varying them [35]. AHP is used to derive relative priorities on absolute
scales (invariant under the identity transformation) from both discrete and continuous paired
comparisons in multilevel hierarchic structures. As many decision problems cannot be structured
hierarchically, due to the interaction and dependence of higher-level elements with the lower level,
a more general form of AHP known as analytic network process (ANP) method is suggested for
the decision-making process which structures the decision-problem in a network [36]. ANP is a
8 ISSN ONLINE 2669-2961
 MAINTENANCE DECISION-MAKING AND ITS RELEVANCE IN ENGINEERING ASSET MANAGEMENT.
SAGAR MORE, RABIN TULADHAR, DANIEL GRAINGER, WILLIAM MILNE

practical approach for determining the interdependency of maintenance strategies [37]. Although
ANP has shown extensive strengths in allowing dependency and feedback in hierarchy and
simplifying complex problems, it has its own limitations like relying heavily on experts’
judgements and experiences and multiple factors leading to unmanageable models [38].
The efficiency and the effects of interdependency of the different industry AM decision
making systems can be analysed with the domino effect analysis. Domino effect analysis
developed by Khan and Abbasi [39] includes two levels of study. The first level is a detailed
analysis to identify units that may be considered as targets, and the second level is a detailed
analysis made to verify the existence of the domino effect, using the potential damages of the
primary event and the characteristics of the secondary unit. Khan [40] also developed the MCAS
(Maximum Credible Accident Scenarios) methodology to evaluate all credible accident scenarios
in an industrial unit. Scientists within industrial engineering have also investigated frameworks
for quantitative risk assessment linked to domino effects. The risk assessment and evolution
modelling of domino effects are divided into three categories: Analytical method, Graphical
method, and Simulation method [41]. Many authors have developed comparative analytical
methodologies for domino effect analysis. Cozzani, et al. [42] devised a systematic procedure for
quantitative risk assessment caused by the domino effect. Antonioni, et al. [43] developed an
analytic methodology based on historical data for the quantitative risk assessment of accidents
triggered by seismic events. The main objective of this methodology is to identify the scenario,
evaluate the credibility and assess the consequential event that may follow a seismic event. Renni,
et al. [44] developed a procedure for the quantitative assessment of industrial risk caused by
lighting in the form of a flowchart, and the main aspects of this methodology are the frequency
and severity of an external event, the identification of target equipment, damage states, reference
scenarios, estimation of damage probability, consequences calculation for the events, each
combination of events, frequency/probability calculation for each combination and calculation of
risk/hazard indices.
Graphical models provide a novel analytical framework for the joint evolution of domino
effects, tackling complex domino scenarios and higher-order propagations [41]. Various graphical
methods are used for the evolution of domino effects and for better representation of the scenarios.
Types like graph/network models, graph metrics, dynamic graphs, Bayesian network, dynamic
Bayesian network, petri-net models, etc. have been used in industries [41]. De Montis, et al. [45]
used a weighted network representation where the vertices represent the towns and the edges
represent the actual commuting flows among those towns. The advantage of using a network
approach is that it allows one to uncover the rich structure in the flow pattern that could otherwise
be difficult to extract and analyse. The limitation of the study is that it does not consider the
uncertainties in the network approach leading to misguiding of the commuters. Graph theory has
been applied to model causal frameworks inherent in the complex phenomenon of various science
disciplines including infectious disease epidemiology, network traffic and neuroscience [46].
Graph metrics like the clustering coefficient and the characteristic path length are useful measures
of global organisation of large-scale networks [47]. The clustering coefficient is a measure of local
network connectivity. A network with a high average clustering coefficient is characterised by
densely connected local clusters. The characteristic path length is a measure of how well
connected a network is. A network with a low characteristic path length is characterised by short
distances between any two nodes [48]. In a graphical representation of a brain network, a node
corresponds to a brain region while an edge corresponds to the functional interaction between two
brain regions. There are several statistical limitations to the study, for example there are no
corrections applied for multiple testing and covariates like age are not adjusted in the non-
parametric Kruskal-Wallis [48]. Abdolhamidzadeh, et al. [49] developed a methodology based on
Monte Carlo Simulation and overcame some of these limitations. This new method, known as the
FREEDOM algorithm, assessed the domino effect in the chemical process industry and was based
on Monte Carlo simulation by conducting several hypothetical experiments to simulate the actual
behaviour of a multi-unit system. Many of these methodologies were inherently limited in their
MAINTENANCE, RELIABILITY AND CONDITION MONITORING 9
 MAINTENANCE DECISION-MAKING AND ITS RELEVANCE IN ENGINEERING ASSET MANAGEMENT.
SAGAR MORE, RABIN TULADHAR, DANIEL GRAINGER, WILLIAM MILNE

ability to handle the uncertainty and complexity associated with domino effect phenomena. After
analysing the available information on domino effects in the process industry and in some natural
events, where the domino effects analysis is well supported by quantitative risk assessment
framework, vulnerability models and graphical methods, the existing literature does not consider
availability of the system as the criteria to analyse the domino effects. Any one model is not
sufficient to arrive at an ideal decision-making process. These tools need to be exercised through
an economic perspective to be able to extract the best possible value from them. Table 2
summarises the advantages and disadvantages of some of the above significant decision-making
tools and methods.

Table 2. Summary of advantages and disadvantages

of some significant decision-making tools and methods
Tools and
Advantages Disadvantages
methods
It allows structuring the decision-making Scoring and ranking in AHP
AHP problem into a hierarchy tree and facilitates depends on the alternatives
understanding of the problem considered for evaluation
It allows dependency and feedback in hierarchy
It relies heavily on experts’
and simplifying complex problems by
judgements and experiences and
ANP understanding the importance level that an
the multiple factors leading to an
attribute could take based on its correlation with
unmanageable model
other attributes
It does not allow for effective
It provides a very quick and simple investigation analysis of the environmental
Domino theory
to determine reasons for the accident factors – the factors external to
the unsafe act
Quantitative It helps in quantifying the risks and remove It is a costly and time-consuming
risk assessment uncertainties from the process process
It is simple and helps to understand and analyse
Graphical It is an overfitting and lack of
the individual variables and their dependency on
models robustness
other variables
Simulation
It helps in detailed and risk-free analysis. It lacks flexibility and accuracy
theory

Maintenance decision-making in industry is well supported by advanced tools and different

models, as described above, but still lacks an integrated and objective methodology which can
give the industry an overview of the impact that equipment failure events have on key business
objectives. The major issues which might affect the decision-making process are the uncertainties
which develop due to limitations of the implemented methods, and which affect the final solution.
In most cases, the ultimate solution is constrained either by budget or a general unwillingness to
adapt maintenance strategies in accordance with equipment condition. The subjective approach
disintegrates the different parameters, instead of integrating them. The model generated in this
manner results in poor management because the focus is generally based on the available
investment cost and return on investment.
Many research studies have highlighted the integrated and hybrid solution for maintenance
decision-making but the integration of cost, risk and performance is something which can be
researched in the future scope of work. These three parameters can reduce maximum number of
uncertainties from the process thus delivering a robust solution. Economic perspective in the
decision-making process helps in prioritising and quantifying decisions, thus making it an
important element in providing an ultimate robust solution.

5. Economic perspective in maintenance decision-making

One of the most important elements that needs to be considered in the AM decision-making

10 ISSN ONLINE 2669-2961

 MAINTENANCE DECISION-MAKING AND ITS RELEVANCE IN ENGINEERING ASSET MANAGEMENT.
SAGAR MORE, RABIN TULADHAR, DANIEL GRAINGER, WILLIAM MILNE

process is economics, whereby all decisions are filtered through an economic prism. Industries
operate on a constrained budget to carry out their operations and the decision-maker must use the
resources wisely and make efficient and quick decisions. Thus, in the industry 4.0 environment,
decisions which take into account economic elements play a crucial role in placing an industry in
a competitive position. Asset owners taking care of complex systems have a certain maintenance
budget available to them for use each year. The main challenge faced by the decision-makers is
how to utilise this budget efficiently to maximise productivity and minimise the risk and cost to
the business. The current approaches towards risk assessment depend on the amount of value put
into addressing a risk event, which is ultimately dependent on expert opinion and experiences.
This results in the designing of the risk assessment framework using largely qualitative inputs. It
does not consider prioritisation of failure modes with respect to any quantitative factors like cost
or failure rate. Generally, the application of a qualitative risk method is time consuming and costly.
A routine maintenance strategy can lead to wastage of maintenance budget based on production
loss due to unplanned downtime and neglecting any potential risk which needs to be attended to
as priority. The inspection is only at the system level and not at the component level. Such
approaches based on qualitative assessment are inefficient in channelising the maintenance
budget.
Considerable work has been carried out around devising economic models which aid in
decision making processes. Authors like Wu, et al. [50] highlight a decision model based on a
novel cost model that analyses the expected degradation reduction and the preventive repairs cost.
The model focuses on reduction of maintenance cost by managing and finding an optimal length
of condition monitoring interval, which has a direct relationship with the monitoring cost.
Although the model helps in monitoring the cost, it does not incorporate the time factor for
preventive repairs. The article by Gilabert, et al. [51] focusses on assessment of predictive
maintenance strategies with respect to certain business scenarios. It highlights the integrated
methodology of existing reliability and maintenance business analysis techniques and standards.
Haroun [52] presents the Activity-Based Costing (ABC) approach as an alternative to the
traditional cost accounting system. ABC provides a costing method which centres around only
those activities which are the primary object of interest. Faccio, et al. [53] suggest a quantitative
framework with simple cost-benefits analysis to develop optimal maintenance policies. In order
to eliminate possible uncertainties and to validate the decision-making process, simulations can
be also carried out either in conjunction with the different models or exclusively. The Monte Carlo
simulation, which is dependent on the reliability information, is based on the probability density
function of failure for the system or component. Studies using Monte Carlo simulation have
demonstrated that it positively impacts the cost-effectiveness analysis of maintenance strategies
during the decision-making process. Yu and Wing-Keung [54] have developed an effective
economic model by using the cost-benefit analysis method along with Monte Carlo simulation.
Cost optimisation is a widely used approach in planning maintenance activities. Louhichi, et
al. [55] derived a cost model based on risk assessment for predictive maintenance, where different
overheads of maintenance costs are derived along with its optimisation. The model is based on an
objective function, which is the sum of all overheads of maintenance costs. The focus of the model
is optimising the maintenance cost and the primary decision variable used is the Remaining Useful
Life (RUL). An economic analysis method is presented in the paper by Berdinyazov, et al. [56],
which helps in selecting the relevant maintenance policy with respect to the failure modes of the
system. The objective function which needs to be optimised involves cost of each implemented
maintenance policy. Vaurio [57] developed a cost model based on finite repair, maintenance
durations and costs. The cost included factors like testing, repair, maintenance and lost production
or accidents. Maillart and Pollock [58] analysed predictive maintenance policies and presented
cost-minimising policies for systems exhibiting 2-phase behaviour. It also focused on determining
the monitoring interval and allocation of monitoring resources. The expected cost (per unit time)
is decomposed into two components: the expected cost due to maintenance actions, and the
expected cost due to monitoring actions. Van Horenbeek and Pintelon [59] developed a dynamic
MAINTENANCE, RELIABILITY AND CONDITION MONITORING 11
 MAINTENANCE DECISION-MAKING AND ITS RELEVANCE IN ENGINEERING ASSET MANAGEMENT.
SAGAR MORE, RABIN TULADHAR, DANIEL GRAINGER, WILLIAM MILNE

predictive maintenance policy for complex multi-component systems aiming at minimising the
long-term mean maintenance cost per unit time. Salonen and Deleryd [60] have modelled the costs
of poor maintenance by studying the cost effects of quality in preventive and corrective
maintenance. Tam and Price [61] have developed an investment decision model for maintenance
based on the decision variables or dimensions like cost, capacity and compliance, which aims to
minimise the sum of three cost categories: the costs of maintenance resources, the costs of planned
downtime, and the costs of quantified risks.
Another widely used approach in maintenance strategy selection is Return on Investment
(ROI). An economic evaluation of predictive maintenance techniques was proposed by Meng, et
al. [62], which integrated system dynamics and evolutionary game modelling methods. In this
paper, a hybrid methodology has been proposed to evaluate the economics of predictive
maintenance technologies through ROI analysis. A Cost Benefit Analysis model is established by
System Dynamics (SD) to estimate the value of ROI. An evolutionary game theory model is
combined with the SD model to optimise the investment strategies of the enterprise. Wolf, et al.
[63] suggest utilising commonly used business management concepts like Net Present Value and
Internal Rate of Return due to their easy interpretation. They give an overview of the driving costs
and profitability of predictive maintenance with an aim to support the decision-making process of
investments in predictive maintenance. Cheng, et al. [64] present the widely used stochastic
gamma process to model the system degradation and highlight the deviation of the probability
distribution of maintenance cost. The proposed approach is useful for a precise estimation of
prediction limits and optimisation of the maintenance cost. Dandotiya and Lundberg [65] proposed
a methodology that combines the different optimum decisions into a single optimum decision
while taking the economic and technical characteristics into consideration.
Another approach proposed by He, et al. [66] is introducing a decision variable defining the
mission reliability state, which further reflects the production state of manufacturing system. The
objective function is to implement and optimise the dynamic predictive maintenance strategy. The
study focuses on two research questions. The first one is “when do we need to implement the
predictive maintenance strategy?”, which is decided with respect to the mission reliability state of
the equipment. Predictive maintenance strategy is implemented if the mission reliability state
reaches it threshold. The second is “how to optimise the predictive maintenance strategy?”, which
is obtained by minimising the comprehensive costs and its elements. The approaches taken by
these studies are still very subjective towards the criticality analysis; there is a lack of
quantification of risk, lack of integration of quantitative FMECA with the existing economic
models, and lack of relative interdependency analysis study. In some cases, the decision criteria
itself are assumed. Many MCDM methods depend extensively on expert opinions and has some
applications limitations. The gaps which were observed in the economic model study include
non-economic overheads such as labour contracts, undefined data ownership, missing human
capital for necessary fields, etc., which must be considered to yield different results during the
decision-making process.
In conclusion, maintenance decision making cannot be made in isolation without taking into
account economic variables. Economic perspective is one of the main pillars of an effective and
successful AM.

6. Conclusions

Over the years, the world has experienced many industrial catastrophic failures which has
increased the awareness of EAM. EAM can achieve maximum success with a flexible but holistic
decision-making framework. Despite past experiences, and even after having collected and
analysed historical data, it is difficult to follow or benchmark a solution to a common repetitive
failure because of the dynamic behaviour of a system and its dependency on other systems on the
site. Thus, decision-making is much like a double-edged sword when it comes to selecting a
maintenance strategy. Although industries understand the importance of EAM, they are still

12 ISSN ONLINE 2669-2961

 MAINTENANCE DECISION-MAKING AND ITS RELEVANCE IN ENGINEERING ASSET MANAGEMENT.
SAGAR MORE, RABIN TULADHAR, DANIEL GRAINGER, WILLIAM MILNE

struggling in adopting relevant strategies suitable for maintaining their physical assets. Evolution
of maintenance strategies followed the evolution of the industrial revolution. Upgrading
maintenance strategies help industries gain the upper edge in a competitive market; the question
which needs attention, however, is how many can afford these strategies?
It is important to approach the topic of maintenance holistically by considering the failure
modes at a granular level. Even as a research topic, theoretical or practical, it is a very difficult
task to carry out critical analysis at the component level considering ever changing environmental
and operational conditions. This forces the industry to monitor or analyse the situation at the
system level. The interdependency study of the equipment within a system of an industry cannot
guarantee successful results in EAM, but it can definitely guide one towards an effective
decision-making process. Different tools, methods and models have been designed to help
decision makers select the ideal strategy in EAM, most of which have been highlighted in this
paper. The aim of highlighted approaches is either to optimise the cost, reduce the risk or enhance
the performance, while the ideal approach is to consider all 3.
Finally, in suggesting future research directions on maintenance decision-making and in also
answering the earlier question on affordability, the focus should be on economic factors while
deriving decision-making strategies, along with risk and performance. The reason for the same is
that every organisation is bound by a specific annual maintenance budget, which is a constraint
while applying affordable maintenance strategies. For instance, predictive maintenance, which
comes with a high investment, helps manage the most critical components. But decision-makers
might settle for preventive or corrective maintenance, which might only address less critical
components, due to the constraint of managing their budget. Over time, with proper maintenance
management the entire model can be shifted to predictive maintenance. Success is measured by
financial performance not only for AM but also for any other segment in the industry. Therefore,
decision making in AM cannot be divested from financial considerations. Decision making should
be done through the prism of budgeting, while the degree of influence that the budget exercises
over decision making may vary according to the scale and scope of the industry. Although research
is only beginning to align with the importance of this perspective, it is irrefutable that economic
factors will always be an indispensable element in decision making. Altogether, everyone
understands the importance of using current trending predictive maintenance strategies, though
the cost of their application is a constraint to the decision-makers. It would be advisable to accept
the hybrid model of maintenance where different maintenance strategies are applied with respect
to the risk level of the asset. This is becoming an emerging trend in many industries and recent
research is bringing this kind of maintenance into the spotlight. This would allow the organisation
to invest strategically, with respect to the organisation’s maintenance budget and help it gain a
marked competitive edge.

Acknowledgements

This study is supported by the engineering department of James Cook University, Australia
and Rockfield Technologies Pty Ltd, Australia.

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the
corresponding author on reasonable request.

Author contributions

Sagar More: conceptualization, writing-original draft preparation. Rabin Tuladhar:

writing-review and editing. Daniel Grainger: writing-review and editing. William Milne:
supervision.

MAINTENANCE, RELIABILITY AND CONDITION MONITORING 13

 MAINTENANCE DECISION-MAKING AND ITS RELEVANCE IN ENGINEERING ASSET MANAGEMENT.
SAGAR MORE, RABIN TULADHAR, DANIEL GRAINGER, WILLIAM MILNE

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

[1] H. Lasi, P. Fettke, H.-G. Kemper, T. Feld, and M. Hoffmann, “Industry 4.0,” Business and Information
Systems Engineering, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 239–242, Jun. 2014, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-014-0334-
4
[2] D. Komljenovic, “Development of risk-informed, performance-based asset management in mining,”
International Journal of Mining, Reclamation and Environment, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 146–153, Jun.
2008, https://doi.org/10.1080/17480930701562176
[3] R. A. Carter, “Managing mobile assets,” Engineering and Mining Journal, Vol. 216, No. 4, p. 46, 2015.
[4] J. K. Allen, S. Azarm, and T. W. Simpson, “Designing complex engineered systems,” Journal of
Mechanical Design, Vol. 133, No. 10, Oct. 2011, https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4005079
[5] M. S. Somia Alfatih, M. S. Leong, and L. M. Hee, “Definition of engineering asset management: a
review,” Applied Mechanics and Materials, Vol. 773-774, pp. 794–798, Jul. 2015,
https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/amm.773-774.794
[6] A. Shah and A. Kumar, “Review on Australian and international practices for asset management in
building infrastructure,” Report 2001-010-C/004, Dec. 2003.
[7] J. Davis, “What is asset management and where do you start?,” Journal AWWA, Vol. 99, No. 10,
pp. 26–34, Oct. 2007, https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1551-8833.2007.tb08042.x
[8] J. Amadi-Echendu, “Assessment of engineering asset management in the public sector,” in Lecture
Notes in Mechanical Engineering, Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2014, pp. 1151–1156,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09507-3_97
[9] Hastings and Nicholas A. J., Physical Asset Management. London: Springer London, 2010, pp. 1–370,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-751-6
[10] B. Pas, “55-1: Asset management. part 1: Specification for the optimized management of physical
assets,” PAS 55-1:2008, British Standards Institution, 2008.
[11] Z. Ma, L. Zhou, and W. Sheng, “Analysis of the new asset management standard ISO 55000 and PAS
55,” in 2014 China International Conference on Electricity Distribution (CICED), pp. 1668–1674,
Sep. 2014, https://doi.org/10.1109/ciced.2014.6991990
[12] “ISO 55000: 2014: Asset management-overview, principles and terminology,” ISO Geneva,
Switzerland, 2014.
[13] R. F. Da Silva and G. F. M. de Souza, “Modeling a maintenance management framework for asset
management based on ISO 55000 series guidelines,” Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering,
Vol. 28, No. 4, pp. 915–937, Oct. 2022, https://doi.org/10.1108/jqme-08-2020-0082
[14] D. L. Nastasie, A. Koronios, and A. Haider, “Integration through standards – an overview of internal
information standards for engineering asset,” in Definitions, Concepts and Scope of Engineering Asset
Management, pp. 239–258, Jan. 2010, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84996-178-3_12
[15] S. Cho, K. Nguyen, and J. M. Wetzer, “Conceptual design for asset management system under the
framework,” ISO 55000, 2015.
[16] D. Ghosh and S. Roy, “A decision-making framework for process plant maintenance,” European
Journal of Industrial Engineering, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 78–98, Jan. 2010,
https://doi.org/10.1504/ejie.2010.029571
[17] Khaled El-Akruti, “Research methodologies for engineering asset management,” in Research
Methodologies for Engineering Asset Management, Jan. 2010.
[18] A. K. Parlikad, C. Pearson, J. Trueman, and S. Coomber, “Engineering asset management: issues and
challenges,” in Cambridge Service Week workshop on the future of Asset Management, 2013,
https://doi.org/10.1080/24725854.2020.1869871
[19] R. K. Mobley, An Introduction to Predictive Maintenance. Elsevier, 2002.
[20] J. Moubray, “Reliability-centered maintenance,” Industrial Press Inc., 2001.
[21] M. Terminology, “CEN (European Committee for Standardization),” European Standard EN,
Vol. 13306, p. 2010, 2010.
[22] T. Nowakowski, A. Tubis, and S. Werbińska-Wojciechowska, “Evolution of technical systems
maintenance approaches – review and a case study,” in Advances in Intelligent Systems and
Computing, pp. 161–174, Aug. 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97490-3_16

14 ISSN ONLINE 2669-2961

 MAINTENANCE DECISION-MAKING AND ITS RELEVANCE IN ENGINEERING ASSET MANAGEMENT.
SAGAR MORE, RABIN TULADHAR, DANIEL GRAINGER, WILLIAM MILNE

[23] H. Lind and H. Muyingo, “Building maintenance strategies: planning under uncertainty,” Property
Management, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 14–28, Feb. 2012, https://doi.org/10.1108/02637471211198152
[24] Ahmed El-Kamash and Mohamed Adel, “A new framework of reliability centered maintenance,”
Jordan Journal of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 13, No. 3, Jan. 2019.
[25] A. Crespo Márquez, P. Moreu de León, J. F. Gómez Fernández, C. Parra Márquez, and M. López
Campos, “The maintenance management framework: A practical view to maintenance management,”
Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 167–178, May 2009,
https://doi.org/10.1108/13552510910961110
[26] S. Wan, J. Gao, D. Li, Y. Tong, and F. He, “Web-based process planning for machine tool maintenance
and services,” Procedia CIRP, Vol. 38, pp. 165–170, Jan. 2015,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2015.07.018
[27] W. Terkaj, T. Tolio, and M. Urgo, “A virtual factory approach for in situ simulation to support
production and maintenance planning,” CIRP Annals, Vol. 64, No. 1, pp. 451–454, Jan. 2015,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2015.04.121
[28] R. Jamshidi and M. M. S. Esfahani, “Maintenance policy determination for a complex system
consisting of series and cold standby system with multiple levels of maintenance action,” The
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 78, No. 5-8, pp. 1337–1346, Jan.
2015, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-014-6727-1
[29] S.-H. Ding, S. Kamaruddin, and I. Abdul Azid, “Maintenance policy selection model – a case study in
the palm oil industry,” Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 25, No. 3,
pp. 415–435, Apr. 2014, https://doi.org/10.1108/jmtm-03-2012-0032
[30] A. Bousdekis, B. Magoutas, D. Apostolou, and G. Mentzas, “A proactive decision making framework
for condition-based maintenance,” Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 115, No. 7,
pp. 1225–1250, Aug. 2015, https://doi.org/10.1108/imds-03-2015-0071
[31] I. Martón, A. I. Sánchez, and S. Martorell, “Ageing PSA incorporating effectiveness of maintenance
and testing,” Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Vol. 139, pp. 131–140, Jul. 2015,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2015.03.022
[32] A. K. Verma, A. Srividya, and P. G. Ramesh, “FIS based selection of CM system design parameters
from a multi-objective optimisation model using GA,” International Journal of System Assurance
Engineering and Management, Vol. 2, pp. 14–20, Apr. 2011, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13198-011-
0050-0
[33] A. T. de Almeida and G. A. Bohoris, “Decision theory in maintenance decision making,” Journal of
Quality in Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 39–45, Mar. 1995,
https://doi.org/10.1108/13552519510083138
[34] M. Velasquez and P. Hester, “An analysis of multi-criteria decision making methods,” International
Journal of Operations Research, Vol. 10, pp. 56–66, 2013.
[35] E. Triantaphyllou, B. Kovalerchuk, L. Mann, and G. M. Knapp, “Determining the most important
criteria in maintenance decision making,” Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 3,
No. 1, pp. 16–28, Mar. 1997, https://doi.org/10.1108/13552519710161517
[36] N. Kadoić, N. B. Ređep, and B. Divjak, International Series in Operations Research and Management
Science. Springer US, 2006, https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-33987-6
[37] A. Shahin, H. Shirouyehzad, and E. Pourjavad, “Optimum maintenance strategy: a case study in the
mining industry,” International Journal of Services and Operations Management, Vol. 12, No. 3,
pp. 368–386, Jan. 2012, https://doi.org/10.1504/ijsom.2012.047626
[38] W. Gu, T. L. Saaty, and L. Wei, “Evaluating and optimizing technological innovation efficiency of
industrial enterprises based on both data and judgments,” International Journal of Information
Technology and Decision Making, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 9–43, Jan. 2018,
https://doi.org/10.1142/s0219622017500390
[39] F. I. Khan and S. A. Abbasi, “Models for domino effect analysis in chemical process industries,”
Process Safety Progress, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 107–123, Jun. 2004,
https://doi.org/10.1002/prs.680170207
[40] F. I. Khan, “Use maximum-credible accident scenarios for realistic and reliable risk assessment,”
Chemical engineering progress, Vol. 97, No. 11, pp. 56–64, 2001.
[41] C. Chen, G. Reniers, and N. Khakzad, “A thorough classification and discussion of approaches for
modeling and managing domino effects in the process industries,” Safety Science, Vol. 125, p. 104618,
May 2020, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104618

MAINTENANCE, RELIABILITY AND CONDITION MONITORING 15

 MAINTENANCE DECISION-MAKING AND ITS RELEVANCE IN ENGINEERING ASSET MANAGEMENT.
SAGAR MORE, RABIN TULADHAR, DANIEL GRAINGER, WILLIAM MILNE

[42] V. Cozzani, G. Gubinelli, G. Antonioni, G. Spadoni, and S. Zanelli, “The assessment of risk caused by
domino effect in quantitative area risk analysis,” Journal of Hazardous Materials, Vol. 127, No. 1-3,
pp. 14–30, Dec. 2005, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2005.07.003
[43] G. Antonioni, G. Spadoni, and V. Cozzani, “A methodology for the quantitative risk assessment of
major accidents triggered by seismic events,” Journal of Hazardous Materials, Vol. 147, No. 1-2,
pp. 48–59, Aug. 2007, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2006.12.043
[44] E. Renni, G. Antonioni, S. Bonvicini, G. Spadoni, and V. Cozzani, “A novel framework for the
quantitative assessment of risk due to major accidents triggered by lightnings,” Chemical Engineering
Transactions, Vol. 17, pp. 311–316, May 2009, https://doi.org/10.3303/cet0917053
[45] A. de Montis, M. Barthélemy, A. Chessa, and A. Vespignani, “The structure of interurban traffic: a
weighted network analysis,” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, Vol. 34, No. 5,
pp. 905–924, Jul. 2016, https://doi.org/10.1068/b32128
[46] W. de Haan et al., “Functional neural network analysis in frontotemporal dementia and Alzheimer’s
disease using EEG and graph theory,” BMC Neuroscience, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 1–12, Aug. 2009,
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2202-10-101
[47] D. J. Watts and S. H. Strogatz, “Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks,” Nature, Vol. 393,
No. 6684, pp. 440–442, Jun. 1998, https://doi.org/10.1038/30918
[48] K. Supekar, V. Menon, D. Rubin, M. Musen, and M. D. Greicius, “Network analysis of intrinsic
functional brain connectivity in Alzheimer’s disease,” PLoS Computational Biology, Vol. 4, No. 6,
p. e1000100, Jun. 2008, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000100
[49] B. Abdolhamidzadeh, T. Abbasi, D. Rashtchian, and S. A. Abbasi, “A new method for assessing
domino effect in chemical process industry,” Journal of Hazardous Materials, Vol. 182, No. 1-3,
pp. 416–426, Oct. 2010, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2010.06.049
[50] F. Wu, S. A. Niknam, and J. E. Kobza, “A cost effective degradation-based maintenance strategy under
imperfect repair,” Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Vol. 144, pp. 234–243, Dec. 2015,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2015.08.002
[51] E. Gilabert, S. Fernandez, A. Arnaiz, and E. Konde, “Simulation of predictive maintenance strategies
for cost-effectiveness analysis,” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B:
Journal of Engineering Manufacture, Vol. 231, No. 13, pp. 2242–2250, Apr. 2015,
https://doi.org/10.1177/0954405415578594
[52] A. E. Haroun, “Maintenance cost estimation: application of activity-based costing as a fair estimate
method,” Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 258–270, Aug. 2015,
https://doi.org/10.1108/jqme-04-2015-0015
[53] M. Faccio, A. Persona, F. Sgarbossa, and G. Zanin, “Industrial maintenance policy development: A
quantitative framework,” International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 147, pp. 85–93, Jan.
2014, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.08.018
[54] D. T. J. Yu and A. L. Wing-Keung, “An economic perspective on predictive maintenance of filtration
units,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.11070, Jan. 2020, https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2008.11070
[55] R. Louhichi, M. Sallak, and J. Pelletan, “A cost model for predictive maintenance based on risk-
assessment,” in 13ème Conférence internationale CIGI QUALITA, 2019.
[56] A. Berdinyazov, F. Camci, M. Sevkli, and S. Baskan, “Economic analysis of maintenance policies for
a system,” in 2009 IEEE International Symposium on Diagnostics for Electric Machines, Power
Electronics and Drives – SDEMPED, pp. 1–5, Aug. 2009,
https://doi.org/10.1109/demped.2009.5292766
[57] J. K. Vaurio, “Availability and cost functions for periodically inspected preventively maintained units,”
Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Vol. 63, No. 2, pp. 133–140, Feb. 1999,
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0951-8320(98)00030-1
[58] L. M. Maillart and S. M. Pollock, “Cost-optimal condition-monitoring for predictive maintenance of
2-phase systems,” IEEE Transactions on Reliability, Vol. 51, No. 3, pp. 322–330, Sep. 2002,
https://doi.org/10.1109/tr.2002.801846
[59] A. van Horenbeek and L. Pintelon, “A dynamic predictive maintenance policy for complex multi-
component systems,” Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Vol. 120, pp. 39–50, Dec. 2013,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2013.02.029
[60] A. Salonen and M. Deleryd, “Cost of poor maintenance,” Journal of Quality in Maintenance
Engineering, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 63–73, Mar. 2011, https://doi.org/10.1108/13552511111116259

16 ISSN ONLINE 2669-2961

 MAINTENANCE DECISION-MAKING AND ITS RELEVANCE IN ENGINEERING ASSET MANAGEMENT.
SAGAR MORE, RABIN TULADHAR, DANIEL GRAINGER, WILLIAM MILNE

[61] A. S. B. Tam and J. W. H. Price, “A generic asset management framework for optimising maintenance
investment decision,” Production Planning and Control, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 287–300, May 2008,
https://doi.org/10.1080/09537280802034042
[62] H. Meng, X. Liu, J. Xing, and E. Zio, “A method for economic evaluation of predictive maintenance
technologies by integrating system dynamics and evolutionary game modelling,” Reliability
Engineering and System Safety, Vol. 222, p. 108424, Jun. 2022,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2022.108424
[63] C. Wolf, A. Kirmse, M. Burkhalter, M. Hoffmann, and T. Meisen, “Model to assess the economic
profitability of predictive maintenance projects,” in 2019 International Conference on High
Performance Computing and Simulation (HPCS), pp. 976–981, Jul. 2019,
https://doi.org/10.1109/hpcs48598.2019.9188221
[64] T. Cheng, M. D. Pandey, and J. A. M. van der Weide, “The probability distribution of maintenance cost
of a system affected by the gamma process of degradation: Finite time solution,” Reliability
Engineering and System Safety, Vol. 108, pp. 65–76, Dec. 2012,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2012.06.005
[65] R. Dandotiya and J. Lundberg, “Economic model for maintenance decision: a case study for mill
liners,” Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 79–97, Mar. 2012,
https://doi.org/10.1108/13552511211226201
[66] Y. He, X. Han, C. Gu, and Z. Chen, “Cost-oriented predictive maintenance based on mission reliability
state for cyber manufacturing systems,” Advances in Mechanical Engineering, Vol. 10, No. 1,
p. 168781401775146, Jan. 2018, https://doi.org/10.1177/1687814017751467

Sagar More is the student at James Cook University, Townsville, Australia pursuing his
PhD in Engineering Asset Management. He completed his Master of Engineering
professional specialised in Technology and Management in 2022 from James Cook
University, Townsville, Australia. He completed his Bachelor of Mechanical Engineering
from Mumbai University, India. His current PhD research is about a data-driven
maintenance decision-making framework for engineering asset management using
economic modelling techniques.

Assoc. Prof. Rabin Tuladhar is the Head of Engineering in the College of Science and
Engineering at James Cook University (JCU). Rabin served as the Director of Engineering
Studies (2018-2020) and Associate Dean Learning and Teaching (ADLT) (2012-2018) for
the College of Science and Engineering. Rabin completed his Ph.D. from Saitama
University. He also worked as a Lecturer at University of Canterbury, Christchurch New
Zealand. He was a Japan Society for Promotion of Sciences (JSPS) Postdoctoral Fellow.

Dr. Daniel Grainger has worked as an electrical engineer, project manager, portfolio of
project manager and corporate finance consultant and teacher (mathematics and physics)
and business owner for approximately 20 years. He was awarded a Centenary Medal of
Australia for academic excellence and the development of an innovative information
technology project. He was also appointed a Fellow of Engineers Australia with citation
“recognized as being amongst the true leaders of the industry and profession”. Current
research interests include best possible decision management tools and the associated
quantification of impact.

William Milne is an industry-focused engineer who has serviced the agriculture, refining
and mining industries since 2007. He has broad experience in condition monitoring, failure
mode effects and criticality analysis, root cause analysis, failure investigation,
proactive/precision maintenance practices, operational readiness and many other asset-
related fields. This unique combination of experience and skills led William into asset
management, and today, William is the team lead of Rockfield’s Asset Excellence team
and is responsible for designing novel, in-house, industry-focused tools that deliver value
to clients by improving the effectiveness of existing on-site practices.

MAINTENANCE, RELIABILITY AND CONDITION MONITORING 17