Maintenance Strategy Selection: A Case Study

SelimZaim
Marmara University, Department of Mechanical Engineering,Goztepe, Istanbul, Turkey,
selim.zaim@marmara.edu.tr

Ali Turkylmaz
Fatih University, Department of Industrial Engineering, Buyukcekmece, Istanbul, Turkey,
aturkyilmaz@fatih.edu.tr

Mehmet F. Acar
Fatih University, Department of Management, Buyukcekmece, Istanbul,
Turkey,mfacar@fatih.edu.tr

Umar Al-Turki
King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals, Systems Engineering Department, Dhahran,
Saudi Arabia,

alturki@kfupm.edu.sa
Omer F. Demirel
Fatih University, Department of Industrial Engineering, Buyukcekmece, Istanbul,
Turkey,odemirel@fatih.edu.tr

Corresponding Author: Omer F. Demirel
odemirel@fatih.edu.tr

Acknowledgement: The authors acknowledge the support of both Fatih University and King
Fahd University for their support. They also acknowledge the anonymous referees for their
constructive comments.

Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the use of two general purpose
decision making techniques in selecting the most appropriate maintenance strategy for
organizations with critical production requirements.
Design/methodology/approach - The Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP) and the
Analytical Hierarchical Process (ANP) are used for the selection of the most appropriate
maintenance strategy in a local newspaper printing facility in Turkey.
Finding - The two methods where shown to be effective in choosing a strategy for
maintaining the printing machines. The two methods resulted in almost the same results. Both
methods take into account the specific requirements of the organization through its own
available expertise.
Practical Implications - The techniques demonstrated in this paper can be used by all types
of organizations for selecting and adopting maintenance strategies that have higher impact on
maintenance performance and hence overall business productivity. The two methods are
explained in a step by step approach for easier adaptation by practitioners in all types of
organizations.
Originality/Value - The value of the paper is in applying AHP and ANP decision making
methodologies in maintenance strategy selection. These two methods are not very common in
the area of maintenance, and hence add to the pool of techniques utilized in selecting
maintenance strategies.
Keywords: Maintenance planning, AHP, ANP, maintenance strategy, strategy selection
Article Classification: Case Study
Running Heads: Maintenance strategy selection



1. Introduction
The cost of maintenance is becoming increasingly critical with the increasingcompetition in
the business environment. The competition is leading to more focus on cost reduction in
operations and maintenance. Cost reduction may immediately be reflected on pricing and
hence, gaining edge over competitors. Maintenance cost constitutes a major portion of total
operations cost and hence is central to most cost reduction programs. Such programs should
be done with care so that other requirements such as quality are not sacrificed.
Maintenance costs can reach to 15-70% of production costs according to different sectors
(Bevilacqua and Braglia, 2000). Moreover, maintenance directly or indirectly influences
product quality, safety and reliability. Nowadays, maintenance is considered as profit
contributor and partner for world class competitiveness (Waeyenberg and Pintelon.2002).
Rausand (1998) identified the four probable consequences of failure, i.e. safety of personnel,
environmental impact, production availability and cost of material loss.
Maintenance is one of the most crucial issues in todays competitive manufacturing
environment. Machine failure may cause various business related problems such as; missing
delivery dates, loss of image and direct and indirect loss of profit and opportunity loss. As
such, maintenance should be carefully dealt with in terms of planning, investment, and
control. In terms of planning, appropriate maintenance strategies should be selected that are in
line with companys global and operational objectives. However, maintenance strategies
change rapidly with new options and practices. In fact any change in operations requires some
adjustment or major change in the adopted maintenance strategy to be compatible with the
new requirements. The selection process itself is becoming crucial for achieving highest
performance. Such decisions that highly impact technology are usually dealt with in
technically founded manner.
The motivation of this work is the existing need for some technical methodologies for
optimum selection of the most fit maintenance strategies. In this research, two of the
commonly methods fordecision making, namely the Analytical Network Process (ANP) and
the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), are used for the selection of the best maintenance
policy. The two methods are simple but powerful in making decisions at different business
and functional levels under high complex and uncertain conditions.
This paper is organized as follows. Firstly, literature review is written about maintenance and
maintenance selection, then AHP and ANP are overviewed and proposed model is introduced.
Lastly, case study is introduced in this paper. The method is demonstrated through a case
study from local industry in Turkey. Results are discussed and benefits are identified.

2. Literature Review
Maintenance is classified into two main categories: corrective and preventive (Li, et al. 2006;
Waeyenberg and Pintelon, 2004). Corrective maintenance is performed after system failure
and preventive maintenance is performed before its failure (Wang, 2002). Corrective
maintenance, also called breakdown maintenance, is the oldest strategy in the industry
(Waeyenberg and Pintelon, 2002,Mechefske and Wang, 2003, Wang, 2007). For large profit
margin organizations, this policy can be seen as feasible strategy (Sharma, et al. 2005).
Preventive maintenance, in practice has two forms; periodic and predictive. In periodic
maintenance, as the name suggests, maintenance is performed periodically to prevent sudden
failure (Wang, 2007). This strategy is also called time-based maintenance and is used by
many firms in the industry following manufacturers recommendations which sometimes
results in unnecessary maintenance activities.
In predictive maintenance, maintenance decisionsare made based on information collected
from special measurement instruments like sensor systems, monitoring techniques, vibration
monitoring, lubrication analysis and ultrasonic testing (Wang, 2007). This strategy is also
known as condition-based maintenance.
In addition to these, opportunistic maintenance is used by some large scale industries such as
petroleum and petrochemical industries. Bevelacqua and Braglia (2000) defined the
opportunistic maintenance as maintenance can lead to the whole plant being shut down at set
times to perform all relevant maintenance interventions at the same time.
Studies on maintenance systems in practice show that some managers are unaware of the
different types of maintenance policies (Shorrocks, 2000; Shorrocks and Labib, 2000) and
selection methods.Luce (1999), Okumura and Okino (2003) presented the maintenance
selection method based on production loss and maintenance cost. Azadivar and Shu (1999)
showed the effective methods of selecting appropriate (optimum) maintenance strategies for
just in time production systems. Bevilacqua and Braglia (2000) used Analytical Hierarchy
Process (AHP) for maintenance selection in an oil refinery and they described some features
in the selection of maintenance strategy, such as: economic factors, applicability, costs and
safety. Al-Najjar and Alsyouf (2003), Sharma, et al. (2005) used fuzzy inference theory and
fuzzy multiple criteria decision making methodology. Moreover, Mechefske and Wang
(2003) showed a new method for selecting the optimum maintenance strategy and condition
monitoring technique. Almeida and Bohoris (1995) developed a new method using decision
making theory especially the multi-attribute utility theory. Triantaphyllou, et al. (1997)
presented AHP model with four maintenance criteria: cost, reparability, reliability and
availability. In addition to these, Bertolini and Bevilacqua (2006) proposed a combined goal
programming and AHP for maintenance selection. Wang, et al. (2007) developed a fuzzy
AHP model for selection of optimum maintenance strategy.
Labib et.al (1998) developed a model of maintenance decision making which includes AHP.
In the first stage, criteria are identified and then in the second stage AHP is applied. Lastly,
machines are ranked according to their importance. Arunraj and Maiti (2010) used AHP and
goal programming for maintenance policy selection according to risk of failure and cost of
maintenance in a chemical factory. They concluded that if risk is chosen as a criterion,
predictive maintenance is preferred policy over periodic maintenance. Similarly, if cost is
chosen as a criterion, corrective maintenance is preferred. Nevertheless, if both risk and cost
are considered, AHP-GP results show that predictive maintenance and corrective maintenance
are best for high risk equipment and low risk equipment, respectively. Labib (2004) also
developed a model for maintenance policy selection using a computerized maintenance
management system. In this study, fuzzy logic and AHP are used. HajShirmohammadi and
Wedley (2004) used an AHP model for maintenance management for centralization and
decentralization. Centralized system means that all maintenance systems are managed from a
centrally administered location. However, decentralized system implies that each production
area manages its own maintenance systems.
Shyjith, et al (2008) developed a model using AHP and TOPSIS for maintenance selection in
textile industry and then Ilangkumaran and Kumanan (2009) integrated fuzzy AHP and
TOPSIS algorithm to select the maintenance policy for textile industry.
It is clear from the literature that AHP has proven success in maintenance strategy selection as
it did for many other decision making problems. As such it was selected to be the major tool
in this paper.

3. Theoretical Background
3.1 The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Method
The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) methodology, which was developed by Saaty (1980), is
a powerful tool in solving complex decision problems. The AHP helps the analysts organize
the critical aspects of a problem into a hierarchical structure similar to a family tree. By
reducing complex decisions to a series of simple comparisons and rankings, then synthesizing
the results, the AHP not only helps the analysts arrive at the best decision, but also provides a
clear rationale for the choices made (Chin et al., 1999).
In the AHP approach, the decision problem is structured hierarchically at different levels with
each level consisting of a finite number of decision elements. The upper level of the hierarchy
represents the overall goal, while the lower level consists of all possible alternatives. One or
more intermediate level embody the decision criteria and sub-criteria (Partovi, 1994).

3.2 The Analytical Network Process (ANP)
The ANP method is an improved version of AHP method and it is more accurate with many
complicated models in which many criteria feedback and interrelations among criteria are
used.
The ANP method evaluates all the relationships systematically by adding all interactions,
interdependences, and feedbacks in decision making systems. The powerful side of our model
is to represent the decision making problem that involves many complicated relationships
easily. This technique does not only enable the pair wise comparisons of the sub-criteria
under main criteria, but also enables us to compare independently all the interacting sub-
criteria.
Decision making problems that occur in firms cannot be explained by only hierarchical
structures. The criteria and alternatives in a problem can have interactions. At these
circumstance, complicated analyzes can be necessary to find out the weights of all
components. ANP technique is used for such as that kind of problems and it is based on
pairwise comparisons as it is in AHP. For pairwise comparisons the 1-9 scale of Saaty (1980)
is used in Table 1. In ANP model all the components and relationships are defined and the
relationships are determined as two way interactions. In the model the network structure is
used and all the relationships in a cluster (that is relationships among sub-criteria in a cluster)
and relationships between sub-criteria under different clusters are considered. Because of such
relationships, the ANP method is useful for getting more accurate and effective results is a
complex and crucial decision making problems.
In ANP method there are three matrix analyses; super matrix, weighted super matrix and limit
matrix. The super matrix provides relative importance of all components and weighted super
matrix finds out the value that is obtained by the super matrix values and the value of each
cluster. In the limit matrix, the constant values of each value are determined by taking the
necessary limit of the weighted super matrix. The results of the decision making problem is
gained from the limit matrix scores. It is important to value the criteria and alternatives by the
experts in order to get more consistent and reliable results.

Table 1. Intensity comparison scale
Option Numerical Value(s)
Equal 1
Marginally strong 3
Strong 5
Very strong 7
Extremely strong 9
Intermediate values to reflect fuzzy inputs 2,4,6,8
Source: Bhushan and Rai (2004)

4. Case Study
The method proposed for selecting maintenance strategy is based on a hierarchical model
composed of a set of criterion and sub-criterion as developed by Saaty. Both AHP and ANP
methods are demonstrated by the following case study from the newspaper printing industry.
The use of the two methods is reported along with their resulting solutions.
One of the most selling newspapers in Turkey, ZAMAN, is the subject of the case study in
this research. It publishes national and international news in the fields of politics, business,
economics, arts, cultures, sports, etc... It is published seven days a week with approximately
30 pages in addition to publishing TODAYSZAMAN, the most circulated English
newspaper in Turkey, and special supplements in weekends and special occasions. It won
different awards in several design competitions.
To meet its publication daily schedule, machines and equipments in its printing house must be
kept continuously ready for production which puts high pressure on operations and
maintenance. Thus maintenance is highly crucial for this firm and therefore selected to be the
focus of this paper. The objective of this study is to select the best maintenance strategy that
meets the operations objectives. Three alternative maintenance strategies are considered, these
are; corrective, periodic (time-based) and predictive (condition-based) maintenance policies.
Opportunistic maintenance is not considered because long time shut down of equipments and
machines is not expected.
Four selection criteria are considered. These are; added value, cost, safety and
implementation. Moreover, different sub-criteria are added to the model. According to the
proposed model, problems, criteria and alternatives are found and these are described in the
steps below.
Step 1: Form a focus group composed of key managers and engineers: The purpose is to
determine and examine current problems and their impact at the business level of the
company. In this case, a project team is established. The project team is composed of five
managers from production planning and control and maintenance in addition to some experts
from several universities.
Step 2:Evaluate the problems:Facilitate a focus group meeting to identify issues and problems
related to maintenance and their possible causes mapped into categories and subcategories.
The group also constructs maintenance method selection criteria and sub-criteria. In this case,
the team identified several issues related to maintenance in ZAMAN printing house. Some
of the issues found to be crucially related to maintenance strategy. One of the most important
problems is the firms image. If machines breakdown and production stops, newspaper may
not be issued and this situation negatively affects the image of the firm. Another problem is
found to be cost. In case of shutdown, the firm may need to outsource the printing of the
newspaper and this causes an extra cost for the firm.
Step 3: Determine the alternative strategies. Some maintenance strategies might not be
suitable for a certain organization. That strategy can be eliminated by the focus group with
more attention and analysis may be conducted for feasible strategies.Throughout the
discussions held with the formed group members, three possible alternative maintenance
strategies are identified, these are; corrective, periodic and predictive maintenance policies.
Opportunistic maintenance is not considered because long time shut down of equipments and
machines is not expected.
Step 4: Construct a hierarchical model: Using criteria, sub-criteria and alternatives, a
hierarchical model is constructed to apply AHP and ANP algorithms. Then relationship
among criteria and sub-criteria are determined and reflected in the hierarchical model.
Maintenance strategy selection criteria were determined based on the review of prior literature
and semi-structured interviews undertaken with 22 managers from relevant departments
including purchasing, manufacturing, quality assurance and maintenance. Figure 2 shows the
hierarchical structure of the maintenance strategy selection problem, which includes four
levels. The top level of the hierarchy represents the ultimate goal of the problem, while the
second level of the hierarchy consists of four main maintenance policy selection criteria,
which are namely added value, cost, safety, and implementation. These criteria are
decomposed into various sub-criteria that may affect the managers decision for a particular
maintenance policy. Finally, the bottom level of the hierarchy represents the alternative
maintenance policies. Each selection criterion in the tree diagram is briefly described below.
The sub-criteria for each main criteria are identified as follows:
A. Value adding is viewed in four possible dimensions (sub-criteria) as follows:
1. On Time Delivery: During the production process, some machines may fail causing
delays in order delivery.
2. Profit: Excessive failures increase maintenance cost and decrease in profit.
Material paper and production time wastages are examples of direct poor
maintenance costs.
3. Quality: Some machine failures may cause drop in product quality showing as
damaged paper or unreadable text.
4. Image: The image of the firm is largely affected by production and maintenance
performance. Late deliveries, low quality printing, shortage in quantities are some
examples causing image damage.
B. The cost criterion includes the following:
1. Hardware: To apply predictive maintenance, the firm may need to acquire some
new machines or equipments.
2. Software: Different software may be required to evaluate information which is
obtained from equipments used for predictive maintenance.
3. Training: Technicians or managers may be required to go through special training
for effective use of equipments and software that are used in predictive
maintenance.
4. Inventory of spare parts: Maintenance strategies, especially corrective
maintenance, some spare parts should be available in inventory. The cost of
holding spareparts adds to the overall maintenance cost.
5. Cost of advising and consulting: For corrective and periodic maintenance
strategies, the firmmay need some special maintenance experts to plan and control
maintenance operations.
These costs are mostly necessary regardless of the type of maintenance strategy adopted
whether corrective, periodic or predictive. However, the costing elements vary in amount
between strategies.
C. The safety criterion consists of the following:
1. Internal Environment: Safety policies and procedures maintains healthy working
environment. Interruptions in operations due to failure may form a source of
hazard to people and the whole internal environment.
2. External Environment: Safety outside the factory is another crucial element,
especially for nuclear or chemical plants. In case of fire or chemical spills in the
printing house may cause unrecoverable damage to the surrounding environment.
3. Personnel: Lastly, some breakdowns and/or maintenance activities may directly or
indirectly harm workers. Therefore, it is essential to seek their opinion about the
possible maintenance practices.
D. The implementation criterion includes the following:
1. Technology: Technology is an important for predictive maintenance, because there
are no special equipments for some machines to apply condition-based
maintenance.
2. Desire of workers: Some of workers may not want to predictive maintenance,
because workers do some extra duties in condition-based maintenance.
3. Desire of top management: Sometimes top managers do not want to apply
predictive maintenance, because its setup cost which is sourced from buying of
hardware and software is high.
4. Decision of Service Company: There are lots companies which supply
maintenance service as business for other companies, so this is a criterion for
firms.
Based on the above identified criteria and sub-criteria, a hierarchical model is constructed and
relations are determined for our case study. The model is shown in Figure 1.
Step 5: Pair wise comparison among criteria and sub-criteria: Pair wise comparisons are
done among related criteria and sub-criteria following the scale suggested bySaaty.A special
questionnaire form is used to complete the pair-wise comparison matrix. In this comparison,
criteria, sub criteriaare used for comparing alternative maintenance strategiesby experts in the
field.














Overall Goal (G)
Machine availability
Value Adding
(V)

Cost
(C)

Safety
(S)

Implementation
(I)

Delivery
(V4)

Profit (V3)

Image (V1)

Quality (V2)

Hardware
(C1)

Software
(C4)

Training
(C2)

Spare parts
(C5)

Consultation
(C3)

External
(S1)

Internal
(S2)

Personnel
(S3)

Technology
(I2)

Workers
acceptance (I1)

Management
acceptance (I3)

Predictive
Maintenance (P1)

Periodic
Maintenance (P2)

Corrective
Maintenance (P3)


Figure 1: The hierarchical model for maintenance strategy selection criteria

Step 6:Applying AHP and ANPalgorithms:
These algorithms give weight to each alternative based on which the best strategy is chosen.
In the AHP approach, the weights of the criteria and the scores of the alternatives, which are
called local priorities, are considered as decision elements in the second step of the decision
process. The decision-maker is required to provide his preferences by pairwise comparisons,
with respect to the weights and scores. The values of the weights
i
v and scores
ij
r are elicited
from these comparisons and represented in a decision table. The last step of the AHP
aggregates all local priorities from the decision table by a weighted sum of the type

=
i
ij i j
r v R
The global priorities
j
R thus obtained are finally used for ranking of the alternatives and
selection of the best one.
In the ANP approach,two matrices are calculated; the weighted super matrix and the limit
matrix.The weighted super matrix permits a resolution of the interdependencies that exist
among the components of a system. It is a partitioned matrix where each sub-matrix is
composed of a set of relationships between and within the levels, as represented by the model.
The entries of the super matrix are imported from the pair-wise comparison matrices of
interdependencies. Since there are 20 such pairwise comparisons matrices, one for each
interdependent criterion, the super matrix contains 20 non-zero columns. The weighted
supermatrix is obtained by multiplying all the elements in a component of the unweighted
supermatrix by the corresponding cluster weight. In other words, the values in the cluster
matrix are used to weight the unweighted supermatrix by multiplying the value in the cell of
the cluster matrix times the value in each cell in the component of the unweighted
supermatrix to produce the weighted supermatrix. The resulting weighted super matrix is
shown in Table 2. The limit supermatrix is obtained by raising the weighted supermatrix to
the power 2k+1 where k is an arbitrarily large number, allows convergence of the
interdependent relationships. When the column of numbers is the same for every column, the
limit matrix has been reached and the matrix multiplication process is halted. The limit
supermatrix for the Model is shown in Table 3.

Table 2.Weighted Super Matrix

P1 P2 P3 G S1 S2 S3 V1 V2 V3 V4 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 I1 I2 I3
P1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.709 0.287 0.290 0.290 0.467 0.176 0.290 1.000 1.000 0.000 1.000 0.000 0.077 1.000 0.091
P2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.179 0.635 0.655 0.655 0.467 0.280 0.655 0.000 0.000 0.750 0.000 0.000 0.462 0.000 0.091
P3 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.113 0.078 0.055 0.055 0.067 0.044 0.055 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.000 1.000 0.462 0.000 0.818
G 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
S1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
S2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.400 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
S3 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
V1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.333 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
V2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.111 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
V3 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
V4 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.278 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.056 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
C1 0.181 0.075 0.042 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
C2 0.085 0.075 0.042 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
C3 0.017 0.677 0.589 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
C4 0.202 0.075 0.042 0.144 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
C5 0.015 0.097 0.286 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
I1 0.100 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
I2 0.300 0.000 0.000 0.178 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
I3 0.100 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000



Table 3.Limit Matrix
P1 P2 P3 G S1 S2 S3 V1 V2 V3 V4 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 I1 I2 I3
P1 0.227 0.227 0.227 0.227 0.227 0.227 0.227 0.227 0.227 0.227 0.227 0.227 0.227 0.227 0.227 0.227 0.227 0.227 0.227
P2 0.146 0.146 0.146 0.146 0.146 0.146 0.146 0.146 0.146 0.146 0.146 0.146 0.146 0.146 0.146 0.146 0.146 0.146 0.146
P3 0.127 0.127 0.127 0.127 0.127 0.127 0.127 0.127 0.127 0.127 0.127 0.127 0.127 0.127 0.127 0.127 0.127 0.127 0.127
G 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
S1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
S2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
S3 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
V1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
V2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
V3 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
V4 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
C1 0.057 0.057 0.057 0.057 0.057 0.057 0.057 0.057 0.057 0.057 0.057 0.057 0.057 0.057 0.057 0.057 0.057 0.057 0.057
C2 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036
C3 0.178 0.178 0.178 0.178 0.178 0.178 0.178 0.178 0.178 0.178 0.178 0.178 0.178 0.178 0.178 0.178 0.178 0.178 0.178
C4 0.062 0.062 0.062 0.062 0.062 0.062 0.062 0.062 0.062 0.062 0.062 0.062 0.062 0.062 0.062 0.062 0.062 0.062 0.062
C5 0.054 0.054 0.054 0.054 0.054 0.054 0.054 0.054 0.054 0.054 0.054 0.054 0.054 0.054 0.054 0.054 0.054 0.054 0.054
I1 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023
I2 0.068 0.068 0.068 0.068 0.068 0.068 0.068 0.068 0.068 0.068 0.068 0.068 0.068 0.068 0.068 0.068 0.068 0.068 0.068
I3 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023
Step 7: Prioritization: It simply means listing alternatives in descending order of their
weights according to both AHP and ANP algorithms.
The AHP algorithm resulted in the following ranking (best to worst) of maintenance
strategies; predictive, periodic and corrective maintenance respectivelyand using the ANP
algorithm; the resulting strategy ranking (best to worst) is; predictive, periodic and corrective
maintenance, respectivelyas shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: AHP and ANP scores

Step 8: Compare results and make the decision: The two solutions, AHP and ANP, are
compared and evaluated by experts to make the best decision.
The analysis clearly shows that predictive maintenance is to be the best strategy by both AHP
and ANP methods. However, in the real situation, ZAMAN is using periodic maintenance
for maintainingits printing house. In fact, predictive maintenance is shown by both methods to
cause unnecessary expenditure for ZAMAN. This is not recognized by the firm since the
maintenance effectiveness is quite high on the expense of efficiency in resource utilization.
Furthermore, technicians and experts are occasionally interfering with the maintenance
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
Predictive M. Periodic M. Corrective M.
AHP
ANP
operations based on their intuitions before the time of periodic maintenance. This can be seen
as predictive maintenance, hence, in fact, both predictive and periodic maintenance are used
in ad-hoc basis.
Currently there are plans underway in ZAMAN to adopt an ERP system for planning and
controlling maintenance operations and at the same time be used to estimate and report the
cost of maintenance.

5. Conclusion
In this research, some criteria are determined about maintenance selection and according to
these criteria, AHP and ANP models are constituted. Three maintenance policies are
considered; these are corrective, periodic (time-based) and predictive (condition-based)
maintenance. Moreover, with the help of experts and engineers, these AHP and ANP models
are used for machines in printing house of the daily newspaper, ZAMAN. At the end of
these analyses, weights of three different maintenance policies are determined. This research
shows that predictive maintenance is the most suitable maintenance policy for this newspaper
firm in both AHP and ANP analyses. In the future, AHP and ANP models can be used with
fuzzy logic for maintenance selection and new models can be done for firms which are in
other sectors.Further research ontesting other decision making tools including fuzzy logic,
may be done. This study can also be extended by adding a new selection factor to the existing
model. In addition, other well known multi-criteria methods such as TOPSIS, ELECTRE can
be used to compare the results of this work.

REFERENCES
Almeida, A.T. and Bohoris, G.A. (1995), Decision theory in maintenance decision making,
Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, Vol.1 No.1, pp.39-45.
Al-Najjar, B. and Alsyouf, I., (2003), Selecting the most efficient maintenance approach
using fuzzy multiple criteria decision making, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol.84, pp.85100.
Arunraj, N.S., Maiti J . (2010), Risk-based maintenance policy selection using AHP and goal
programming, Safety Science, Vol. 48, pp.238-247
Azadivar, F. and Shu, V., (1999), Maintenance policy selection for J IT production systems,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol.37 No.16, pp.37253738.
Bertolini, M. and Bevilacqua, M. (2006), A combined goal programming-AHP approach to
maintenance selection problem,Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Vol. 91,
pp.839-848.
Bevilacqua, M. and Braglia, M. (2000), The analytic hierarchy process applied to
maintenance strategy selection,Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Vol. 70,
pp.71-83.
Bhushan, N. and Rai K. (2004), Strategic Decision Making, Applying the Analytical
Hierarchy Process, Springer-Verlag, London.
Chin, K-S., Chiu, S., and Tummalo, R.V.M. (1999), An evaluation of success factors using
the AHP to implement ISO 14001-based EMS,International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 341-362.
HajShirmohammadi, A. and Wedley W.C. (2004), Maintenance Management an AHP
application for centralization/decentralization, Journal of Quality in Maintenance
Engineering, Vol.10 No.1, pp.16-25.
Ilangkumaran, M. and Kumanan, S. (2009), Selection of maintenance policy for textile
industry using hybrid multi-criteria decision making approach, Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management ,Vol. 20 No 7, pp.1009-1022.
Labib, A.W. (2004), A decision analysis model for maintenance policy selection using a
CMMS, Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp.191-202.
Labib, A.W., OConnor R.F., Williams G.B. (1998), An effective maintenance system using
the analytic hierarchy process, Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol.2 No. 9,
pp.87-98.
Li, J .R., Khoo, L.P., and Tor, S.B., (2006), Generation of possiblemultiple components
disassembly sequence for maintenance using a disassembly constraint graph,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 102, pp.51-65.
Luce, S., (1999), Choice criteria in conditional preventive maintenance, Mechanical
Systems and Signal Processing, Vol. 13 No.1,pp.163-168.
Mechefske, C.K. and Wang, Z., (2003), Using fuzzy linguistics to select optimum
maintenance and condition monitoring strategies, Mechanical Systems and Signal
Processing, Vol.17 No.2, pp.305316
Okumura, S., and Okino, N., (2003), A maintenance policy selection method for a critical
single-unit item in each workstation composing a FMS with CBM optimization,
International Journal of COMADEM, Vol.6 No.2, pp.3-9.
Partovi, Y.F. (1994), Determining What to Benchmark: An Analytic Hierarchy Process
Approach, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 14
No. 6, pp. 25-39
Rausand, M. (1998), Reliability centered maintenance,Reliability Engineering System
Safety, Vol.60 No.2, pp.121-32.
Saaty, T.L. (1980), The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill, New York
Saaty, T.L. (2001), Decision Making with Dependence and Feedback: Analytic
NetworkProcess, RWS Publications, Pittsburgh.
Sharma, R.K., Kumar, D., and Kumar, P. (2005), FLM to select suitable maintenance
strategy in process industries using MISO model, Journal of Quality in Maintenance
Engineering, Vol. 11 No.4, pp.359374.
Shyjith, K., Ilangkumaran M., and Kumanan S. (2008), Multi-criteria decision-making
approach to evaluate optimum maintenance strategy in textile industry, Journal of
Quality in Maintenance Engineering, Vol 14 No. 4, pp.375-386.
Shorrocks, P. (2000), Selection of the most appropriate maintenance model using a decision
support framework,unpublished report, UMIST, Manchester.
Shorrocks, P. and Labib, A.W. (2000), Towards a multimedia based decision support system
for word class maintenance, Proceedings of the 14th ARTS (Advances in Reliability
Technology Symposium), IMechE, University of Manchester.
Triantaphyllou, E., Kovalerchuk, B., Mann, L., Knapp, G.M. (1997), Determining the most
important criteria in maintenance decision making, Journal of Quality in
Maintenance Engineering, Vol.3 No.1, pp.1628.
Waeyenbergh, G., Pintelon, L., (2002), A framework for maintenance concept
development, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 77, pp.299-313.
Waeyenbergh, G. andPintelon, L. (2004), Maintenance concept development: A case study,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 89, pp.395-405.
Wang, H., (2002). A survey of maintenance policies of deteriorating systems, European
Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 139, pp.469-489.
Wang l., Chu J ., Wu J . (2007), Selection of optimum maintenance strategies based on a
fuzzy analytical hierarchy process,International Journal of Production Economics,
Vol. 107, pp.151-163.