Toward a framework for a maintenance architecture

Abstract

PurposeThis paper aims to investigate how the product architecture and service architecture methodology can be applied in strategic maintenance optimization to reduce the non-value-adding variance of maintenance, decrease the complexity and ensure alignment in maintenance practices in asset-intensive companies. The proposed maintenance architecture model will make it possible to make data-driven decisions regarding how the equipment should be grouped and maintained.Design/methodology/approachThe research approach is considered exploratory, and the main research strategy is a case study. The maintenance architecture model is developed based on the product architecture methodology and then tested in three different cases in the oil and gas sector.FindingsThrough the maintenance architecture model, it is possible to pair a quantitative data-driven approach with qualitative understanding of dependencies between equipment, maintenance actions and maintenance work management processes, enabling a more holistic and top-down data-driven approach to improving maintenance, than what currently exists in literature.Originality/valueThe proposed model provides a contribution to the understanding of maintenance and is positioned at a detailed level, different from other maintenance improvement models. This model is focused on the main drivers of maintenance that can be utilized at the strategic level compared to optimization of maintenance for individual pieces of equipment.

Systematic maintenance action modularization for improved initiative prioritization

“…The study started with an observation of a lack of overview of the maintenance process in a case company. As the study by Sigsgaard et al (2021) had shown, such an overview could be gained through a maintenance architecture mapping of the aspects equipment, action, and process. However, mapping especially the action view became difficult as the amount of data was too big and difficult to compare.…”

“…However, where maintenance differs from services is in the recipient of the delivered value. In maintenance the asset owner who needs a safe production that functions within the given specifications is the recipient of value (K. V. Sigsgaard et al, 2021). In services the recipient is typically an entity outside the company in the form of a client or customer (Løkkegaard et al, 2016).…”

“…In services the recipient is typically an entity outside the company in the form of a client or customer (Løkkegaard et al, 2016). The studies by Sigsgaard et al (2021) and Agergaard et al (2022) propose defining maintenance modules by the dimensions action, physical, and process. The action dimension encompasses the steps taken during the maintenance execution.…”

“…Increasing size and complexity of production facilities is putting a strain on informed decision making in maintenance. The difficulties arise from a lack of overview when hundreds of thousands of pieces of equipment need to be maintained (Agergaard et al, 2021; K. V. Sigsgaard et al, 2021). Such large facilities introduce larger amounts of variation in equipment types and conditions, making the maintenance actions required further varied.…”

“…A key has been to improve commonality among parts while balancing the varied demands of customers (Simpson et al, 2014;Thevenot & Simpson, 2006). While modularization is a widely studied subject in products, the application is new in more intangible areas such as services (de Mattos et al, 2021;Eissens-van der Laan et al, 2016;Johnson et al, 2021;Løkkegaard et al, 2016) and maintenance (Agergaard et al, 2022; K. V. Sigsgaard et al, 2021). Applications in maintenance have found that maintenance modules are multidimensional, spanning the dimensions physical, action, and process.…”