Joumal of Applied Sciences & (23): 4321-1329, 2008, ISSN 1812-5654 © 2008 Asian Network for Seientifie Information A Combined Approach for Maintenance Strategy Selection ‘M Pariazar, J. Shabrabi, MS. Zaeri and Sh. Pathizi Department of Industrial Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran Abstract: In this research, @ methodology was proposed to select optimum maintenance strategy. The study suggested a methodology which applied various steps. This research considered developing a list of eriteria with the recognition of pattems amongst those criteria. Having developed the hierarchy structure, then the paper illustrates the use of an AHP improved by Rough set to eliminate the ineonsisteney commonly existing in the AHP method. A case study is used to demonstrate the application of the various steps of the proposed methodology. Key words: Maintenance strategies. analytical hierarchy process. rough set theory, factor analysis INTRODUCTION discontinuous, complex. and unstructured (Hajshirmohammadi and Wedley, 2004) and it is necessary Nowadays with increasing Technology’s to be considered the great mumber of attributes. and development and develop Indestry’s automation and — miscellaneous factors that some of them are intangible {increase of machinery’s quantity, volume of investment in (Bevilaequa and Bruglia, 2000). organization’s physical assets and machineries have ‘Tosobve this kind of problems, some multiple criteria. increased significantly. One of the fimdamental items for decision approaches have been suggested. In particular, these factories is the cost of maintenance that ean reach Almeida and Boheris (1995) considered the application of 15-70% of production costs based on type of industry decision-making theory to maintenance paying special (Beviluoqua and Braplia, 2000), The amount of money attention to the multiple attribute utility theory spent on maintenance in a selected group of companies is Triantaphyllou et af. (1997) suggested the use of the estimated to be about 600 billion dollars in 1989 (Chan and analytical hierarchy process considering only four Lav, 2005), Annual maintenance cost in comparison with maintenance eriteria: cost, repaitability, reliability and tum over in some of Burepean countries, based on survey availability. Azadivar and Shu (1999) presented the results of European Federation of National Maintenance method to select suitable maintenance strategy for each, Societies (EENMS) in 1990 is; Belgium 4.8, France 4, class of systems in a just-in-time environment, exploring Ireland 5.1, Taly 5.1, Netherlands 5, Spain 3.6.and UX 16 characteristic factors that could play ® role in 3.7%. Furthermore, maintenance plays a key role in maintenance strategy selection. Bevilacqua and Eraglia reliability capability, availability, products quality, risk (2000) presented an application of the AHP technique for reduction, increasing efficieney, equipment safety andetc, maintenance strategy selection in an Italian oil refinery In this regard, maintenance and its strategies are of processing plant, combining many features which are special importance in Industry. In this research, we will go important in the selection of the maintenance policy: trough the five most important kinds of strategies put economic factors, applicability and costs, safety, ete forward that include: corrective, preventative, _Al-Najjar and Alsyouf (2003) and Sharma et al. (2005) ‘opportunistic, condition-based and predictive assessed the most popular maintenance strategies using maintenance. the fuzzy inference theory and fuzzy multiple eriteria Implementation costs both in terms of fixed decision making evaluation methodology. Okumura and investments and assignment of people are high; henee, Okino (2003) showed the methods to seleet the most we don't want to repeat it for some time, On the other effective maintenance strategy based on different hhand, there exist multipk criteria and multiple perspectives production oss and) maintenance costs incurred by that should be considered and taken heed of in this different maintenanee strategies. Mechefske and Wang, decision making, Decision making process and jucsment (2003) proposed a model that evaluate and select the regarding selection of maintenance strategy are often optimum maintenance strategy and condition monitoring Corresponding Author: Mahmood Pariazar, No. 13, Ehsani alley, Hassani St, Abouzar 8Q, P.O. Box | ‘Tera, ran Tel: +98-9125456683 4321 66658409,J.Applied Se, 8 (2 technique making use of fixzzy linguistics Hajshirmchammad: and Wedley (2004) proposed a systematic model for evaluating different maintenance ‘organizational structures with respect to the objestives of fa maintenanee department. This model provided step by step guidelines for the maintenance management and decision makers to go through the evaluation process Camero (2005) proposed a model that carries out the decision making in relation to the selection of the liagnestie techniques and instrumentation in the predictive maintenance programs. Her model used a combination of tools belonging to operation research such as analytic hierarchy precess and factor analysis Bertolini and Bevilacqua (2006) presented a goal programming approach to define the best strategies for the maintenance of critical centrifugal pumps in an oil refinery. Wang (2007) proposed a mode! that helps management to select optimum maintenance strategies based on a fuzzy analysis hierarchy process. In this research, we with the help of going over expertie of experts and their relevant specialized literature tuy to recognize variables and effective criteria in selecting maintenance strategy. Then, by using factor analysis, we Will process the data so that we can designate fundamental variables and summarize them in some factors. Thee after, we will apply the results from factors analysis for nomination of criteria in a hieragchy structure. Consequently, to choose best strategy, we will evaluate and determine weight of each maintenance strategy by improving AHP with rough set theory. By using rough set, theory in AHP method the qualitative judgment can be qualified to make comparison more intuitionistic and reduce or eliminate assessment bias in pairwise comparison proves MAINTENANCE STRATEGIES Tn this research, we have gone through 5 types of maintenance strategies a Fellows: Corrective maintenance: This alternative maintenance strategy is also named as fire-fighting maintenance, failure based maintenance or breakdown maintenance. When the contective maintenance strategy is applied, maintenance is not implemented until failure occurs (Swanson, 2001), Comective maintenance is the original maintenance strategy appeared in industry (Chan and Lau, 2005, Wang, 2007). Its considered as a feasible stategy in the cases where profit margins are large (Sharma ef al, 2005), However, such a fire-fighting mode of maintenanee often causes serious damage of related facilities, personnel and environment. Furthermore, increasing global competition 1 4821-4329, 2008 and small profit margins have forced maintenance managers to apply more eflective and reliable maintenance strategien, Preventative maintenance: This approach is based oa component reliability characteristics. This data makes it possible to analyze the behavior of the clement in question and allows the maintenance engineer to define 1 periodie maintenance program for the machine. The preventive maintenance policy tries to determine a series of checks, replacements and/or component revisions with fa fequeney related to the failure rate, In other words, preventive (periodic) maintenance is effective in overcoming the problems associated with the wearing of component, It s evident that, ater a cheok, it is not always necessary fo substitute the component maintenance i offen sulfcient. For performing preventive maintenance, a decision support system is needed and it is offen difficult to define the most effective maintenance intervals because of Jacking sufficient historical data (Mann ef al, 1995), In many cases when maintenance strategies are used, most machines are maintained with a significant amount of useful life remaining (Mechefske and Wang, 2003). This often leads to umecessary maintenance, even deterioration of machines if incorrect maintenance is implemented. Opportunistic maintenance: The possibility of using ‘opportunistic maintenance is determined by the neamess for concurrence of control or substitution times for different components on the same machine or plant, This type of maintenance can lead to the whole plant being shut down at set times to perform all relevant maintenance interventions at the same time. ‘Therefore, this maintenance strategy requires coordination and support from produotion!s personnel, Condition-based maintenance: Maintenance decision is made depending on the measured data from a set of sensors system when using the —condition-based maintenance strategy, To date @ number of monitoring techniques are already available, such as vibration monitoring, lubricating analysis and ultrasonic testing ‘The monitored data of equipment parameters could tell engineers whether the situation is normal, allowing the maintenance staff to implement necessary maintenance before failure occurs. This maintenance stategy i often designed for rotating aud reciprocating machines, eg. turbines, centrifugal pumps and compressors. But limitations and deficiency in data coverage and quality reduce the effectiveness and accuraey of the condition based maintenance strategy (Alnajjar and Alsyouf, 2003), 4322J.Applied Se, 8 (2 Predictive maintenance: Unlike the condition-based maintenance policy, in predictive maintenance the acquired controlled parameters data are analyzed to find 1 possible temporal trend. This makes it posible to predict when the controlled quantity value will reach or exceed the threshold values, The maintenance staff will then be able to plan when, depending on the operating conditions, the component substitution or revision is really unavoidable, MAINTENANCESTRATEGY SELECTION CRITERIA, Selection of maintenance strategy in each organization depends on many criteria, This decision especially effects on how to allocate resource, technology selection, management and organization process, et, Henee, to select suitable strategy, it is mocessary to choose this decision commensurate with fact. Studying related articles to maintenance strategies (Alnajar and Alsyouf, 2003; Bevilacqua and Braglia, 2000; Triantaphyllou et af, 1997; Wang, 2007) and also using, expertise, we have recognized key and erucial criteria for selection of maintenance strategy; recognized criteria are as Follow: Risk Personnel training Services quality Equipment’s wear and tear Product's defect Environmental effects Equipment’s set uptime Personnel wage ‘Customer satisfaction Equipments and personnel efficiency Personnel damages Product's quality Software cost Reliability Hardware facilities Hardware cost Software facilites Equipment safety Skill human resources In order to take a suitable and accurate decision that satisfies organization's requitements, paying attention to above mentioned criteria is erucial and vital. MATERIALS AND METHODS Proposed methodology comprises 5 steps. Generally this methodology afer recognizing important criteria with the help of one of multivariate analysis techniques have formed the decision tree and with the application of AHP. has improved by rough set theory has assessed each maintenance strategy. These steps have been detailed as it continves. 1 4821-4329, 2008 Step 1: We with the help of going over expertise of experts and their relevant specialized literature ty to recognize 19 variables and effective Criteria in maintenance strategy selection Since considering all criteria for maintenance strategy selection seems to be impossible it seams to be necessary to use a dimension decreasing technique for extracting pattem and summing up ctiteria, In this methodology due to considering munual relation between factors for decreasing dimensions and recognition of patterns, factor analysis has been used as one of the most applicable and suitable techniques of multivariate analysis With regard to the essence of each group criteria placed in each factor, we have labeled reccgnition factors in preceding stage. Then hierarchical wee s formed With the improvement of AHP technique, by rough set theory it would become possible to reach {0 consistent comparison, By using rough set theory in AHP method the qualitative judgment ean be qualified to make comparison mote intuitionistic and reduce or climinate assessment bias in pair wise comparison process In order to caleulate the final score of each supplier, the weight of criteria, sub criteria and maintenance strategy’ information should be combined, Step 2: Step 3: Step 4: Step 5: A short deseription of using techniques Factor analysis (FA): Factor analysis is a general tenn that is given toa aroup of statistical mulvariate methods which their primary goal is to define covert stractane i data, In general terms by defining a collection of joint covert dimensions that are referred to as factors, it analysis relations structure (correlation) amongst great volume of variables (Thompson, 2004). The aim of FA techniques is to find the synopsis of availble data in inital quantity of variables and conversion of them to @ smaller collection of dimensions or new combination factors with less data missing Lattin etal, 2003) Improved AHP using rough set theory: AHP is a well known technique to help the analysts to organize the critical aspects of a problem into a hierarchical structure for making a decision (Saaty, 1980). In this technique, the Consistency Index (CD) is wed as @ measure of 4323J. Applied Se, 8 (23): 4321-4329, 2008 consistency of the judaments, where Cl = (Agacn}! (nel), where Aye is the biggest eigenvalue and n is dimension of the matrix. In AHP, the pairwise comparisons in a judgment matrix are comidered to be adequately consistent ifthe corresponding Consistency Ratio (CR) is less than 10%, Ifthe CR value is greater than 0.10, then a re-evaluation of the pairwise comparisons is recommended (Seaty, 1980), Rough set theory, proposed by Pavrlak (1982), is a rnew mathematical approach to data analysis. The basic idea behind this method is the clasification of objects into similar classes (clusters) to find hidden patterns in the data (Nelson and Starzyk, 2001) For the propose of reducing subjective extent of thuman jucigment, we propose decision table approach for obtaining more objective weights, Conditional entropy and attribute significance concepts in rough sets theory can be used in AHP to improve the judgment consistency (Xia and Wu, 2007). We consider the use of the concept of attribute signifieance in rough sets theory proposed by Wang (2001 )to eliminate evaluation bias problem in AHP. Some important concepts wed in the proposed methodology are discussed below (Xia and Wu, 2007) Formally, a data table isthe 4-tuple S = {URV.8, where U isa finite set of objects (universe); R= CuD is @ set of attributes, subsets C and D are the condition attribute set and the decision attribute set, respectively Y, is the domain of the attribute r, V = Ux, V;_ and £ U-R-Vis total fuetion such that fGcn}eV, foreach reR, XeU, called information function To every nomempty subset B of attributes R (BSR) is associated an iniscemibility relation on U, denoted by IND (B): IND) {6,y)] @ YUU, Voe B, 60 = bOI} Clearly, the indiscernibility relation defined is a equivalence relation (reflexive, syrametric and transitive), The family of all the equivalence classes of the relation IND (B) is denoted by UIIND (B). Definition 1: Entropy H (P) of knowledge P (attributes set) is defined as H@)=-Spos toe where, p(X) =|X/{U] and p(X) denotes the probability of shen P is ont the partition 1X} of universe U, Definition 2: Conditional entropy Hi (QP) which nowledge Q(UIND (Q)= fj, Yi.» Yod) i relative to knowledge P (UIIND (P)= £X,, %, .. X,})is defined as: Spee) Spcy sata! ) is conditional probability, 3: Suppose that decision table S = {U,R, V, , CUD, subsets C and D are the condition attribute set and the decision attribute set, respectively, attribute subset A c C. The attribute significance SGF (a, A, D) of attribute a(aeC\A) is defined as SGF (a, A.D)= H DIA. (DAU {a}). Given attribute subset A, the greater the value of SGF (a, A, D), the more important attribute a is for decision D. Application of factor analysis to identify key criteria in maintenance strategy selection: Here, we have introduced Key criteria for decision making regarding selection of maintenance strategies. Taking into account all 19 criteria for decision making is a complicated and high error probable process. For the application of Factor analysis we moed data commensurate with fact: that clarify the relation between criteria. For this reason a questionnaire was prepared and 96 experts in this field were queried so that requized data wa obtained. After application of FA technique on data, following results were shown in Table 1; elements of the factor loading matrix pertinent to criteria for 4 factors after rotation (based on varimax method) have shown. In this methodology for extracting factors, method of eigenvalue Digger than | has been used, Serviees quality Egipme's Ware nl tea Peseoel raining Soto ort, 08815 artrace ities 0.0050 Prods deft ‘onsaa Sota fies 86 Egigments setup ining ms? SH Haran rena, ost Casemer section 10 Equpmey ety “o.1460 Parcel damages ons Harare co 08132 Prout qaliy 1800 Enwrcmentl tet ‘03761 Equipment and Pesornel efficiency 12360 Paral age O66 Risk 0264 38 Relais 01510 4324J. Applied Se, 8 (23): 4321-4329, 2008 Lev: Goa cea tema: [Vane wea) cme) Sy ©) Tasca Dy Level 3: Sub siteia Products quality anipment sats & Bviomentiss Fel Lovel4 Conective Preventive ‘Oppestunisic Condition based Precive fteratives | maimenance maintenance sainienance aieerance sainerance {CM PM) {OM «CBM @DN) Fig. 1: Decision tree and selection of maintenance strateg After factor rotation, alloeation of eriterion to factor is exeouted with higher accurn example, services quality criterion will be obviously allocated to factor 2. Selection of these 4 factors has the capability of deducing 78.8% of data. Now, we make a distinction of allocated criteria in each factor. Obtain result have been shown in Table 2. This makes it easier to label factors Equipment tear and ware criterion, education of personnel, software cost, installation and set up timing of equipment, Harchware cost and personnel wages, all have been allocated to factor 1. Investigating these criteria, it is understood that all of them are cost and refer to cost calculation therefore, we have niamed factor 1 as cast. We further label other 3 factors, which its results culminates in naming factor 2.as value added, factor 3 as execution capability and finally factor 4 as safety. and less error. For Making hierarchy tree: We propoted results obtained from factor analysis and connection between factors and criteria to a maintenance assessment team that includes experts inthis field. ARer defining a general goal that was selection of maintenance strategy, we tried to visualize a hierarchical siuctire that included criteria, sub criteria “able 2 Ales criteria to sable factor Crise Face | Faiae Face Fastrs Equpnai aware mle 851 Paseal sing Setar cet Eiger setup ining Hirdware com Penna wage Servite ality acess (seer fiction ower Prost qalsy aes Eames nd personne Ee oss irda ftir asses Saba fii nas Skil hana pescurces ase Prod’ defect 0490 Egipmessaety 656 Parte! danas nse Ennai tects na Risk 0308 Retabity sod and choices related to acquiring the general goal that its results have been shown in Fig. Goal is selecting the best maintenance strategy that includes 4 eriteria; value added (A), Cost (B), safety (C) and execution capability (D), Value added criterion includes 2 sub criteria of products quality (Al) and ‘equipment and personnel efficiency (A2). Criterion of castJ.Applied Se, 8 (2 constitutes 3 sub criteria of personnel traning cost (BL), hardware costs (B2) and software costs (B3). Criterion of safety constitutes 3 sub-ertera of equipment safety (C1), personnel damages (C2) and environmental effeets (C3). Criterion of exeeution capability ineludes 2 subseriteria of Human resource (D1) and equipment and technology (D2). Five option of corrective maintenance (CM), preventative maintenance (PMD, opportunistic maintenance (OM), condition-based maintenance (CBM) and predictive maintenance (PdM) have been considered for selection This hierarchical structure can tremendously help in suitable and acewate decision making for selection of maintenance strategy in organizations CASE STUDY Here, an industrial unit for the selection of best maintenance strategy with regard to stated methodology earlier has been studied, This industrial unit is active in producing standard parts, Most of produced productions in this complex corstitute products such as screw basic and spring nut, gasket, different kinds of metal spangles (isks) and hinges in miscellaneous sizes. In the process of production of these productions, different equipments suchas lathes, die and press, CNC, welding and are used For the time being, maintenance strategy of this unit is corrective one and activity of maintenance init is taken plage only after equipments break down In the past, due to high profit margin and exclusivity in the market, this strategy was applied by the management, But currently considering the huge volume of production and neoessity for diminution of stopping production line and converting the market to a competitive market, necessity for altering the maintenance strategy’ seems to bea vital issue, Because, an appropriate maintenance strategy results in reduetion of over head costs, preserving reliability level, increase of product's ‘quality and customer satisfaction, Management is willing to deeide new maintenance strategy without huge amount of investment, With regard tomethodology of mentioned earlier, goal is choosing the best strategy from amongst 5 strategies mentioned. Considering that steps 1, 2 and 3 have been applied in prior selections, inthis part we only deal with application of steps 4, 5, In step 4, for assessment of criteria with the help of improved AHP by rough set theory, the procedure is as follows: initially for each of mentioned criterion in Fig, 1, a valve such as the values of 1, 2 and 3 which are associated with low, middle, high or good, middie, poor is selected, These numerical quantities of scale are chosen in consideration of essence of criteria. In Table 3, these {quantities have been mentioned for different eriteria In next stage in order to evaluate eriteria, alist of their different combination is made, We should pay 1 4821-4329, 2008 ‘Table: Manion of sale fr te rier No_oisias Sear No Gries Su r aE 5 32 ¥ 2 BOY ° BS x 5 © x 10 a x 4 dD Ox u o x $ aX 2 G y ‘ ed i DI z 7 a OY " Da x x High Mile Low z Sood Mille Poor x ow Midile —_aa attention that necessarily all possible combinations are not considered in this list. Different combinations are definable based on approach and view point of management of each organization. For example this list mentions Value added (A), cost (B), safety (C) and execution capability (D) criteria in Table 4 \Valus of | indecision column for each row mentions selection of that sow’s conditions and value of zero shows nonaccepiance of that row's conditions by the decision maker. For example, row 17 shovis that if value addled, cost, safety and execution capability are good, middle, high and middle, respectively, decision maker doestit have any willingness for realization of these conditions and values it as zero. For fining mentioned criteria weight in Table 4, In accordance with following process, itis done based on rouh set theory U]IND{A, B,C, D} = (£13, £25, 3), (4) 5H £44} Ul IND Ed} = {49,8 15, 16,26, 27,28, 30, 31,32, 38. 34,36, 4,41, 43,49}, {1,2,3.4,5,6,9,10, 11,12, 13,14,17, 18,19, 20, 21, 2, 23, 24, 25, 29,35, 37, 38,39, 23} = (YY) UJINDEB,G,D} = £01,21,38), 2,22 39), 3,233. (4.24 40}, (5,25, 41}, 6 26}, 7.27, 18,28}, (9,9, 4}, (10,30, 43}, {11,31}, 12,32, 4, {13,33}, {14}, {15,34}, 16}, 17,353, (18, 36}, {19,37}, 20}} = (KX Xu Xe Xs » Xo} UlINDEA, CD} = £1,9,17), (2, 10,18}, 113, (4,12, 193, {5,13,20}, 6,148, (7,153, (8, 16}, £21, 29, 38}, (22, 30, 36}, £23,313, (24,32 37), £25,333, 2653, (27, 4, (28), £38, 42}, 39, 43}, (40,44), {4133 = {KKK KyKy oy KKal U|INDEA,B, D} = ££1,4,73, £2, 5,83, 3,6}, £9.12, 153, {10,13,16}, (11,143, {17,19}, £18,203, (21,24,273, (22, 25,28}, (23, 26}, (29,32 34), £30,333, 31}, (35,373, 136), £38, 40}, (39, 41}, 42,44}, (43}} ~ {Ls Lo bs Le De os Ly Lad UlINDIA.B,C} = £11.23), £4,5,6}, 17,8), 19.10,11), #12,13,14}, (15,165, {17,18}, 119,205, 121,22, 23}, £24, 26}, £27, 283, (29,30, 31}, £3233}, £343, (35,363, 37}, 393, £40, 413, £42, 43}, £443} = {ViVi Vn Ves Viry £43}, t Vm Vat 4326J. Applied Se, 8 (23): 4321-4329, 2008 “able: Decision ble shout value add (A), cost, sey (C) sat “able: Poba iy aes sta 1 na eT ram ae eT oH ¢ 1 faces aaa ramet an ‘: ; tees eee fe or : ; 3 I t 2 2 t 4 a v3 2 - i zi fi - i 3 sas 13 2B Seaci feaee eae ecu ah @ a $3 teas suey Bh i : 4 : 3 1 ° : ot Teese ° > 3 2 2 1 ° ° ve ° 1 ee feed sit oh a ts no ee ee oon Eh in i Bo peas ¢ oon Pn 2 a Bot Seaaa uaa raise an ie ra hoot fee aed eee i : i boot tes 18 bh 1 ° eae ees eee it 1 ° mot Sasa cee we : ; oe) teeta : mu te b » 2 ea 2 1 a i‘ : 2 1 2 1 2 1 i es Bia eed wane : BG Peaee cade 8 tne cade at Sm paca tere 1 Seaman Ge aaa atm SaDR Is Sees Seats 1 eer tercerer mien eo see 1 swaineoscay= “teatogiuin tgs Seinisuouscrete i: = 2 2 _ e ‘SG (C, (4,8, 0), (4) (2 Log/2+1/2 Log 12)*4 Sas eee : Ser errerc ters ai eran 1 sare.can.g,oy= —“auuatasiaaa te ae sea ; sala inant Pee fester 1 Fie t-Reutof al and etl BG Tees eas > Mensies Loalwegi—cgaToaleegi Giang eS sees tee oR om AL ses 1s src sae REGED i tne can Bo Saeed ok os om tm te seacies eee eee : Sone wo $e aeeae : Bow om ae eae Loe a ooas 2 @ tae Sot ones i els #111 ii, ou DL Aller definition of above set probabilities P(X), P (YX) are calculated that results have been Shown in ‘Table s [As itis shown in Table 6, importance of A,B, C and D titeria are 0. 1396, 010805, 02003 and 0.0698 respectively. If superiority of importance of choices i and j are respectively as Wand W,, pairwise comparison matrix for these 4 criteria is Formed as below. WW, Ww. 11.733 0.687 1,999 » {0577 1 0397 Las4 “l14s6 2522 1 2910 9500 0867 03441 ‘With the help of eigenvector method, weight of each criterion is calculated based on above matrix, These woights are 0.283, 0,163, 0.412 and0.142 for A,B, CandD criteria respectively. As it was mentioned earlier improved AEP's specifications with the help of rough set theory, doing pairwise comparisons are completely consistent. In order to better understand this subject, calculation of afore mentioned consistency index matrix is dane, in this matrix Zn equals 4 and comidering that c.!=~® and n= 4, CL quantity would be zero, This shows this idea that pairwise comparison matric made by rough set theory is completely consistent. Similarly weights ofall eriteria and sub-oriteria have been ealeulated and its results have bbeen shown in Table 7. Information of each of Maintenance strategy has been shown in Table 8 4327J. Applied Se, 8 (23): 4321-4329, 2008 ‘Table Meintenmee sates ifoaion Arg) 7 30 ot a2e9) 3 v0 96 BIS) 240 0 0 5263) 9009 900 1300 B38) 900 11080, 1300 Chicas) 3 2 2 1 caste) 0s ous oa 002 Csome 3 2 2 birai) 1 2 2 States PAL oT ae aay 0a oa fos nasa oo noe aos ons oat nos ons? ast C3iGraée) Tao Dirale) G07 oo eH Dard) 00st fast baal Gols Finlmeela igs 073s 0.4964 0.2001 After normalizing information and considering global \weight in them, final weight of each supplier is calculated Obtained results from final weight of each supplier have bbeen shown in Table 9 Amongst these 5 strategies, predictive maintenance strategy has the most weight and corrective maintenance strategy has the least weight. Ax a resull, predictive maintenance strategy is selected as the best strategy for this technical unit CONCLUSION In this study, one method has been provided for deciding best maintenance strategy. Five kinds of most important mentioned strategies that inelude corrective, preventative, opportunistic, condition based and predictive have been comiidered in this methodology. One optimal maintenance strategy could result in reduction of unnecessary maintenance costs and promotion of reliability and availability of equipments Evaluation of these strategies is a decision making. problem in multiple condition and numerous factors are effective in decision making, In this methodology by utilizing the combination of two techniques of factor analysis and improved analytical hierarchy provess by rough set theery, firstly we ky t recognize key factors fyom amongst effective factors and then making hierarchy structure and evaluation of strategies. Various steps of the methodology have been demonstrated using sample examples. These examples indicate industry specific use of the methodology as well as its being simple in application. One other important feature of the method as discussed in this paper is its capability to eliminate inconsistency in AHP application In a case study it has been mentioned that this methodology ean help us effectively for selecting optimal srategy. REFERENCES: Almeida, A. and G. Bohoris, 1995, Decision theory in ‘maintenance decision making. J. Qual. Mainten. Eng, 1:39.48. Alnajjar, B. and 1. Abyouf, 2003. Salecting the most efficient maintenance approach using fuzzy’ multiple cnteria decisionmaking. Int. J Prod. eon. 84 85-100 Avadivar, F. and V. Shu, 1599, Maintenanoe policy selection for JIT prsiution systems, Int J. Pros Res, 37; 37253738 Bertolini, M. and M. Bevilacqua, 2006. A combined goal programming-AHP approach to maintenance seletion problem, Reliab. Eng, Syst Saf 91: 839-848 Bevilacqua, M. and M, Bragli, 2000, The anelytic hierarchy process applied to maintenance strategy selection. Reliab, Eng, Syst. Saf, 70: 71-83. Camaro, M, 2005, Selection of diagnostic techniques and instrumentation in a predictive maintenance program. Deis, Suppest. Syst, 38: 539-555. Chan, F. and H. Lau, 2005, Implementation of total productive maintenance: A case sty, Int J. Prod Reon, 95; 71-94 Hajshirmobammadi, A. and W. Wedley, 2004 Maintenance management an AHP application for 151-163, ia, W. and Z, Wu, 2007, Supplier selection with multiple criteria in volume discount envitonments. Int. J. Manage. Sci., 35: 494-504 4329)