Research directions for integrating the triple bottom line in maintenance dashboards

Journal of Cleaner Production

Volumn 142, Issue , 2017, Pages 331-342

  Sénéchal, Olivier ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DE VALENCIENNES   (France)

^b UNIV LILLE   (France)

Author keywords

Dashboards; Maintenance; Performance indicators; Sustainable performance; Triple bottom line

Indexed keywords

BENCHMARKING; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS;

CONDITION BASED MAINTENANCE; DASHBOARDS; KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS; MAINTENANCE PROCESS; PERFORMANCE INDICATORS; SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY; SUSTAINABLE PERFORMANCE; TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE;

MAINTENANCE;

EID: 84996938021     PISSN: 09596526     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.132     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Abichou B., Voisin A., Iung B., Kosayyer N., Choquet integral capacities-based data fusion for system health monitoring, 8th IFAC symposium on fault detection, Supervision and Safety of Technical Processes, IFAC SAFEPROCESS 2012, 29–31 August, Mexico City, Mexico.
2. Ajukumar, V.N., Gandhi, O.P., Evaluation of green maintenance initiatives in design and development of mechanical systems using an integrated approach. J. Clean. Prod. 51 (2013), 34–46.
3. Al-Najjar, B., Impact of real-time measurements of operating conditions on effectiveness and accuracy of vibration-base maintenance policy. J. Qual. Maintenance Eng. 6:4 (2000), 275–287.
4. Alsyouf, I., Measuring maintenance performance using a balanced scorecard approach. J. Qual. Maintenance Eng. 12:2 (2006), 133–149.
5. Asselot, T., Le débat sur la “Triple Bottom Line”, Cahier de recherche de l'Observatoire du Management Alternatif. 2011, HEC, Paris, Mai.
6. Baines, T.S., Lightfoot, H.W., Benedettini, O., Kay, J.M., The servitization of manufacturing. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 20:5 (2009), 547–567.
7. Bartolomeo, M., dal Masoa, D., de Jongb, P., Ederc, P., Groenewegend, P., Hopkinsone, P., Jamese, P., Nijhuisg, L., Örningeh, M., Scholli, G., Slobg, A., Zaringh, O., Eco-efficient producer services–what are they, how do they benefit customers and the environment and how likely are they to develop and be extensively utilized ?. J. Clean. Prod. 11:8 (2003), 829–837.
8. Bertolini, M., Bevilacqua, M., A combined Goal programming- AHP approach to maintenance strategy selection problem. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf., 91, 2006.
9. Bevilacqua, M., Braglia, M., The analytic hierarchy process applied to maintenance strategy selection. J. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf., 70, 2000.
10. Bevilacqua, M., Ciarapica, F.E., Giacchetta, G., Marchetti, B., Development of an innovative criticality index for turnaround management in an oil refinery. Int. J. Prod. Qual. Manag., 9(4), 2012.
11. Brissaud, F., Lanternier, B., Charpentier, D., Modeling failure rates according to time and influencing factors. Int. J. Reliab. Saf. 5:2 (2011), 95–109.
12. Buchert T., Kaluza A., Halstenberg F.A., Lindow K., Hayka H., Stark R., Enabling Product Development Engineers to Select and Combine Methods for Sustainable Design, 21st CIRP Conference on Life Cycle Engineering, 18–20 June 2014, Trondheim, Norfolk Island, pp 413–418.
13. Doumeingts, G., Vallespir, B., Chen, D., GRAI grid decisional modelling, in handbook on architecture of information systems. Bernus, P., Mertins, K., Schmith, G., (eds.) International Handbook on Information Systems, 1998, Springer Verlag, 313–337.
14. Elkington, J., Cannibals with Forks: the Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. 1998, New Society Publishers (en).
15. EN 15341, Maintenance Key Performance Indicators. 2007.
16. Ghosh, D., Roy, S., A decision-making framework for process plant maintenance. Eur. J. Ind. Eng. 4:1 (2010), 78–98.
17. Goedkoop, M., Spriensma, Eco-indicator 99, a Damage Oriented Method for Lifecycle Impact Assessment., 2000 methodology report (update April 2000).
18. Grabowski, M., Ayyalasomayajula, P., Merrick, J., McCafferty, D., Accident precursors and safety nets: leading indicators of tanker operations safety. Marit. Policy Manag. 34:5 (2007), 405–425.
19. He, D., Bechhoefer, E., Development and validation of bearing diagnostic and prognostic tools using hums condition indicators. In 2008 IEEE Aerospace Conference, 2008, IEEE, 1–8.
20. Hinze, J., Thurman, S., Wehle, A., Leading indicators of construction safety performance. Saf. Sci. 51 (2013), 23–28.
21. ISO 14040, Environmental management - life cycle assessment - principles and framework. Int. Organ. Stand., 30, Jun 2006.
22. Iung, B., Levrat, E., Crespo Marquez, A., Erbe, H., Conceptual framework for e-Maintenance: illustration by e-Maintenance technologies and platforms. Annu. Rev. Control 33:2 (December 2009), 220–229.
23. Iung B., Levrat E., Advanced Maintenance Services for Promoting Sustainability, Keynote of the 3rd International Conference on Through-life Engineering Services, 4th & 5th November 2014, Cranfield University, UK.
24. Kaplan, R.S., Norton, D.P. The balanced scorecard. Measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review, January-February, 1992, 71–9.
25. Kumar, U., Galar, D., Parida, A., Stenström, C., Berges, L., Maintenance performance metrics: a state-of-the-art review. J. Qual. Maintenance Eng. 19:3 (2013), 233–277.
26. Le Son, K., Mitra, F., Barros, A., Levrat, E., Iung, B., Remaining useful life estimation based on stochastic deterioration models: a comparative study. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 112 (2013), 165–175.
27. Le, T.T., Bérenguer, C., Chatelain, F., Hidden Markov Models for diagnostics and prognostics of systems under multiple deterioration modes. Nowakowski, et al. (eds.) Safety and Reliability: Methodology and Applications, 2015, Taylor & Francis Group, London ISBN 978-1-138-02681-0.
28. Levrat, E., Thomas, E., Iung, B., ‘Odds’-based decision-making tool for opportunistic production–maintenance synchronisation. Int. J. Prod. Res. 46:19 (2008), 5263–5287.
29. Martorell, S., Sanchez, A., Carlos, D., Serradell, V., Comparing effectiveness and efficiency in technical specifications and maintenance optimization. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 77 (2002), 281–289.
30. Mather, D., The Maintenance Scorecard: Creating Strategic Advantage. 2005, Industrial Press, New York.
31. Medina-Oliva, G., Voisin, A., Monnin, M., Peysson, F., Leger, J.B., Prognostic assessment using fleet- wide ontology. PHM Conference 2012, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA, 2012.
32. Mentzer, J.T., Konrad, B.P., An efficiency/effectiveness production-distribution system: models and methods. Bus. Logist. 21 (1991), 33–62.
33. Muchiri, P., Pintelon, L., Gelders, L., Martin, H., Development of maintenance function performance measurement framework and indicators. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 131 (2011), 295–302.
34. Muller, A., Suhner, M.C., Iung, B., Formalisation of a new prognosis model for supporting proactive maintenance implementation on industrial system. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 93 (2008), 234–253.
35. Oberender, C. Birkhofer, H. The Eco-Value Analysis – An Approach To Assigning Environmental Impacts And Costs To Customers’ Demands. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Design Conference, May 17-20, 2004, Dubrovnik, Croatia.
36. Parent, J., Cucuzzella, C., Revéret, J.-P., Impact assessment in SLCA: sorting the sLCIA methods according to their outcomes. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess 15 (2010), 164–171.
37. Parida, A., Chattopadhyay, G., Development of a multi criteria hierarchical framework for maintenance performance measurement (MPM). J. Qual. Maintenance Eng., 13(1), 2007.
38. Peel, L., Data driven prognostics using a Kalman filter ensemble of neural network models. International Conference on Prognostics and Health Management, 2008. PHM2008, 2008, 1–6.
39. Sadeghi, A., Manesh, R.A., The application of fuzzy group Analytic Network Process to selection of best maintenance strategy- A case study in Mobarakeh steel company, Iran. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci., 62, 2012.
40. Sari, E., Shaharoun, A.M., Ma'aram, A., Mohd Yazid, A., Sustainable maintenance performance measures: a pilot survey in Malaysian automotive companies. Procedia CIRP, 26, 2015.
41. Sénéchal, O., Pilotage des systèmes de production vers la performance globale. 2004, Habilitation à diriger des recherches de l'Université de Valenciennes et du Hainaut- Cambrésis, Valenciennes, 118.
42. Sénéchal O., Pires S.R. Loures S., Trentesaux D.P. Santos E., Sustainable Performance: A Paradigm Inducing New Needs of Interoperability Between Maintenance and Scheduling Activities in Manufacturing, 5th International Workshop Advances in Cleaner Production, May 20th to 22th 2015, São Paulo Brazil, pp 234.
43. Shang, H., Bérenguer, C., A Colored Petri Net model for railway track maintenance with two-level inspection. Nowakowski, et al. (eds.) Safety and Reliability: Methodology and Applications, 2015, Taylor & Francis Group, London ISBN 978-1-138-02681-0.
44. Shin, J.-H., Jun, H.-B., On condition based maintenance policy. J. Comput. Des. Eng. 2 (2015), 119–127.
45. Stahel, W., The Functional Economy: Cultural and Organizational Change. The Industrial Green Game: Implications for Environmental Design and Management. 1997, National Academy Press, Washington DC, 91–100.
46. Takata, S., Kimura, F., Van Houten, F.J.A.M., Westkamper, E., Shpitalni, M., Ceglarek, D., Lee, J., Maintenance: changing role in life cycle management. CIRP Ann. – Manuf. Technol. 53:2 (2004), 643–656.
47. Toellner, J., Improving safety and health performance. Identifying and measuring leading indicators. Prof. Saf. 46:9 (2001), 42–47.
48. Triantaphyllou, E., Kovalerchuk, B., Mann, L., Knapp, G.M., Determining the most important criteria in maintenance decision making. J. Qual. Maintenance Eng. 3:1 (1997), 16–24.
49. Tukker, A., Tischner, U., New Business for Old Europe : Product-service Development as a Means to Enhance Competitiveness and Eco-efficiency. SusProNet (Sustainable Product-Service co-design Network) Union Européenne. Final report: 247, 2004.
50. UNEP, Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products. 2009, United Nations Environment Program, Paris.
51. VanHorenbeek, A., Pintelon, L., Development of a maintenance performance measurement framework using the analytic network process (ANP) for maintenance performance indicator selection. Int. J. Manag. Sci. Omega 42 (2014), 33–46.
52. Voisin, A., Levrat, E., Cocheteux, P., Iung, B., Generic prognosis model for proactive maintenance decision support: application to pre-industrial e-maintenance test bed. J. Intell. Manuf. 21 (2010), 177–193.
53. Wang, T., Yu, J., Siegel, D., Lee, J., A similarity-based prognostics approach for remaining useful life estimation of engineered systems. International Conference on Prognostics and Health Management, PHM2008, 2008, 1–6.
54. Wang, L., Chu, J., Mao, W., A condition-based replacement and spare provisioning policy for deteriorating systems with uncertain deterioration to failure. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 194 (2009), 184–205.
55. Wiener, N., Cybernnetics or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine, Herman et Cie. 1948, The Technology Press, John Wiley and Sons augmented edition, The MIT Press, 1961.
56. Yasin, M., Czuchry, A.J., Dorsch, J., Small, M., In search of an optimal cost of quality: an integrated framework of operational efficiency and strategic effectiveness. J. Eng. Technol. Manag. 16 (1999), 171–189.
57. Yigitbasioglu, O., Velcu, O., A review of dashboards in performance management: implications for design and research. Int. J. Account. Inf. Syst. 13:1 (2012), 41–59.
58. Youssouf Mahamoud, N., Dehombreux, P., Pirlot, M., Robleh, H.E., Maintenance Policy Selection from a Limited Number of Decision Criteria. A Case Study: an Application of the ELECTRE II Method for Selecting the Best Maintenance Policy for Hydraulic Couplings. Accepté à la 11ième édition du congrès international de génie industriel (CIGI2015), 2015, Université de Laval, Québec.