Practical implications
A stochastic maintenance
management model with
recovery factor
Cheng-Hua Wang and
Sheue-Ling Hwang
The authors
Cheng-Hua Wang is Lecturer, Department of Business
Administration, Chang-Jung Christian University, Tainan, Taiwan.
Sheue-Ling Hwang is Professor, Department of Industrial
Engineering and Engineering Management, National Tsing-Hua
University, Hsinchu, Taiwan.
Keywords
Maintenance, Human failure, System monitoring
Abstract
In this study, recovery factor was considered in the maintenance
management model that integrates the quantitative method and
qualitative concept. The model is developed to solve the
practical parameters in a maintenance management task, such
as the number of maintenance personnel and maintenance cycle
time. The stochastic model is applied to construct the
relationships among maintenance cycle, maintenance personnel
allocation, human recovery factor, and a system’s tolerance time.
In addition, a simulated experiment was conducted to find out
the supplementary parameters such as individual latent human
error, individual critical human error, recovery rate, and a
system’s tolerance time. Since system availability is the criterion
of this maintenance management model, the final solution of
this model provides a system availability reference table of the
combination of the number of maintenance personnel and the
maintenance cycle time. This system availability reference table
is a practical tool for maintenance managers.
Electronic access
The Emerald Research Register for this journal is
available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is
available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1355-2511.htm
Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering
Volume 10 · Number 2 · 2004 · pp. 154-164
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited · ISSN 1355-2511
DOI 10.1108/13552510410539222
154
The system availability reference table derived
from the stochastic model of this study is practical
for maintenance managers allocating maintenance
personnel as well as formulating the maintenance
cycle time. To meet the satisfactory system
availability, the optimal combination of the
number of maintenance personnel and
maintenance cycle can be found to determine
effective and efficient maintenance schedules and
plans. As to the practical implication of the model
solution, the stochastic model of this study that has
integrated quantitative and qualitative models,
provides a simple and practical solution to the
maintenance problem. As well as the maintenance
cycle and maintenance personnel, other
parameters such as human error rate and system’s
tolerance time were obtained by the simulated
experiment. In such way, this maintenance
management model could reduce perplexity of the
previous mathematical models. Moreover, a
similar strategy of model development can be
applied to various maintenance management fields
as long as the relevant parameters are obtained.
1. Introduction
Most industrial production systems are subject to
deterioration with usage and age. Such system
deterioration may lead to higher production costs
and lower product quality and the increased
possibility of breakdown. Therefore, a well-
planned maintenance management program is
important to reduce costly breakdowns (Dohi et al.,
2001). In some cases, system failure leads to
uncountable costs, for example, the failure of an
airplane engine during flight may bring property
damage and loss of life. Therefore, extensive
maintenance is necessary to improve the system
availability (Murthy and Hwang, 1996).
Maintenance management plays a critical role
in preventing deterioration and failure in systems.
Usually, maintenance management can be defined
as the combination of technical maintenance and
associated administrative actions intended to
retain an item in a system or restore the system to a
normal state. The maintenance management
objectives can be summarized as follows:
This study was supported by a research grant from
the National Science Council under the project
number NSC 90-2218-E-007-003. The authors also
acknowledge the editor, Professor Kaio and the
anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on
an earlier draft of this manuscript.
 A stochastic maintenance management model
Cheng-Hua Wang and Sheue-Ling Hwang
.
ensuring system function (availability,
efficiency and product quality);
.
ensuring system life (asset management),
ensuring safety; and
.
ensuring human well-being (British Standards
Institution, 1984).
To accomplish the goals of maintenance
management, maintenance management models
are derived which cover four characteristics:
(1) A description of a technical system.
(2) Modeling of deterioration of the system.
(3) A description of the available information
about the system and the actions in
management.
(4) An objective function and an optimization
technique which helps find the best balance
(Dekker, 1996).
In general, maintenance management models can
be classified into quantitative models and
qualitative models as shown in Figure 1.
The quantitative models includes deterministic
models and stochastic models, such as linear and
nonlinear programming, dynamic programming,
Markov decision methods, decision analysis
techniques, search techniques, and heuristic
approaches (Sherif, 1982).
The deterministic model was developed for
minimizing the total cost of maintenance
management and planning optimal maintenance
schedule (Jardine, 1973; Gupta, 1981; Jayabalan
and Chaudhuri, 1992). Stochastic models were
developed to address continuous operating
systems, as well as intermittent operating systems
Figure 1 Classification of maintenance management models
155
Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering
Volume 10 · Number 2 · 2004 · 154-164
(Dey and Jaisingh, 1988; Berg, 1984). The
available literature on discrete time maintenance
models predominantly treats an equipment
deterioration process as a Markov chain, and
similar approaches have also been discussed on the
development of maintenance system for road
surface maintenance (Pat-Cornell et al., 1987).
Most of these stochastic approaches predict the
future state of equipment based only on the
current condition without any regard to past
break-down, usage or maintenance activities.
As to the qualitative models, Nowlan and Heap
(1978) first addressed the general description of
reliability-centered maintenance (RCM). RCM
was founded in the 1960s and initially oriented
towards airplane maintenance. It is only now, more
than 20 years later, that RCM has started to break
through in many industries. It directs maintenance
effort to those parts and units where reliability is
critical. It can be regarded as the more qualitative
approach to maintenance whereas mathematical
models are the quantitative approach (Anderson
and Neri, 1990).
Another important qualitative approach should
be mentioned is total productive maintenance
(TPM), originating from Japan, which solves
maintenance problems using a quality circles
method (Nakajima, 1986). This approach has the
potential of providing almost a seamless
integration of production and maintenance
through development of a strong partnership
(Maggard and Rhyne, 1992).
As automated systems are getting sophisticated,
to fulfill systems’ goals during operation, these
 A stochastic maintenance management model
Cheng-Hua Wang and Sheue-Ling Hwang
systems require extensive maintenance, and most
maintenance activities have to be operated by
humans. Human factors in maintenance
management are considered in the following
functions:
.
training maintenance personnel;
.
diagnosing and error recovering;
.
recording maintenance data; and
.
handling equipment (Dhillon, 1986).
Figure 2 shows the human roles in the
maintenance management system.
Quantitative models can simplify a realistic
maintenance management situation so that the
tasks can be managed easily, and system
performance can be predicted precisely. However,
there exists the gap between theory and practice.
The reasons are as follows:
.
Maintenance mathematical models are
difficult to understand and to interpret. For
example, a Markov decision model is far more
difficult to understand and to interpret than a
routing problem.
.
Many papers have been written for
mathematical purposes only. Mathematical
results and structures of optimal equations,
however, may not be easy to practice for users.
On the other hand, qualitative models may
describe the important concepts that are not easy to
quantify. For example, the TPM emphasizes
smooth partner relationships for production and
maintenance performance, and human factors
stress on human training, communication, and
error diagnosis tasks. However, the qualitative
models lack objective numeric analysis to estimate
maintenance management performance precisely.
Therefore, in the present study, a model which
integrates the stochastic process (quantitative
method) and human factors (qualitative method) is
proposed to predict the influence of the
Figure 2 Human in the maintenance management system
156
Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering
Volume 10 · Number 2 · 2004 · 154-164
maintenance time cycle and the number of
maintenance personnel on system availability
under the consideration of recovery factor. It is
expected to find out the appropriate maintenance
cycle and maintenance personnel allocation in
order to improve the efficiency of system operation.
2. Concepts of a stochastic maintenance
management model
The human errors can be classified into two types:
(1) Critical human error which will cause system
breakdown immediately.
(2) Latent human error which does not lead to
immediate system breakdown, and may be
recovered by maintenance personnel in the
system tolerance time period.
If the latent error is recovered, then the system can
be operated normally. Hence, the concept of a
human error recovery function that has been taken
into consideration in the system design may
improve equipment efficiency, reduces operation
and maintenance cost, and increases the system
availability (Dhillon, 1986; Dirickx and Kistner,
1979).
For improving the system availability, one can
either decrease the human error rate in the
maintenance task, or positively improve the
equipment to tolerate the slight latent human
error. If a latent human error occurs during the
operating process and has been recovered in time,
then the system can be operated continuously,
otherwise, these human errors will lead to system
breakdown. The system can be continuously
operated if no error occurs during the maintained
operating process. However, either a critical
human error or equipment failure will lead to
system breakdown.
 A stochastic maintenance management model
Cheng-Hua Wang and Sheue-Ling Hwang
Since human error is not avoidable, one can either
make a greater effort in training the operators,
selecting appropriate operators to perform the
task, or improving the mechanical equipment to
reduce the human error, for example, increasing
the tolerance time of the machine so that the latent
human error in the system can be recovered in
time. In addition, since prevention is better than
cure, the system availability can be improved by
keeping up appropriate maintenance
management.
In the real world, the maintenance time is
usually considered to be continuous, while system
state is discrete. Therefore, in this study, a
continuous-time stochastic model and a
supplementary variable technique (Cox and
Milles, 1968) are applied for finding the
appropriate maintenance time cycle and number
of maintenance personnel as well as the influence
of the tolerance time on error recovery.
3. Modeling process
Figure 3 is the transition diagram of the stochastic
maintenance management model, and the states
are defined as follows:
(1) State 0 – the system is in normal operation.
(2) State 1 – a latent human error exists in the
system and the system is still in normal
operation.
Figure 3 Transition chart of system operation
157
Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering
Volume 10 · Number 2 · 2004 · 154-164
(3) State 2 – the system is being maintained.
(4) State 3 – the system has broken down due to
equipment failure or critical human error or
latent human error not recovered in time.
Once the system has broken down, it will be
repaired at the system repair rate r.
In this model, a latent human error, a critical
human error, or equipment failure may occur
during the operation or maintenance period.
Either a critical human error or equipment failure
will lead to immediate system breakdown.
Nevertheless, as long as the latent human error has
been recovered in time, the system could be
operated normally. When the system has broken
down, it will be repaired eventually.
In state 0, the system is operated normally. If at
least one critical human error occurs or equipment
fails (Rc þ rm), then state 0 will change to state 3.
On the other hand, if at least one latent human
error occurs (Rl), then state 0 will change to state
1. In addition, operation state (state 0) may change
to maintenance state (state 2) with maintenance
cycle rate l. In state 1, if a latent human error
occurs and it has been found and recovered by the
operators, then state 1 will become state 0 with
recovery rate G(a). When recovery time exceeds
the system tolerance time a, state 1 will change to
state 3 with transient rate 1 2 GðaÞ. Furthermore,
state 1 may change to state 2 with maintenance
cycle rate l. In state 2, if the maintenance
personnel do not make a latent human error or a
critical human error, this state will change to
 A stochastic maintenance management model
Cheng-Hua Wang and Sheue-Ling Hwang
state 0. If at least one latent human error occurs,
state 2 will change to state 1. If at least one critical
human error occurs, state 2 will become state 3. In
state 3, the system has broken down. It will be
repaired with repair rate r, and become state 0.
3.1 Notation
The symbols of this model are described as follows:
Pi(t): the probability of the system in state i at
time t.
P1(t,y): the probability of the system in state 1 when
the latent human error occurred at time t
and the recovery time has been used for
time y.
rl: individual latent human error rate.
rc: individual critical human error rate.
rm: the equipment failure rate.
r: the system repair rate.
N: number of maintenance personnel who also
operate the system.
Rl: the rate when at least one latent human
error occurs, and Rl ¼ 1 2 ð1 2 rlÞN .
Rc: the rate when at least one critical human
error occurs, and Rc ¼ 1 2 ð1 2 rcÞN .
R: the rate when neither latent human error
nor critical human error occurs, and
R ¼ ½1 2 ðrl þ rcÞ
N .
a: the upper limit of the system’s tolerance
time.
l: maintenance cycle rate which represents
the maintenance frequency.
S: Laplace transformation.
g(y): the probability density function of the
recovery time y.
G(y): the cumulative distribution of g(y).
3.2 Assumptions
The assumptions of this model are summarized as
follows:
(1) The human error can be separated into two
forms:
.
Latent human error. The latent human error
may occur during state 0 or state 2 with the
same rate rl. The system may not break
down after the latent human error occurs,
but the system will have broken down
when the recovery time exceeds the
tolerance time of the system.
.
Critical human error. The critical human
error may occur during state 0 or state 2
with the same rate rc. If the critical human
error exists in the system, it will cause
immediate system breakdown.
(2) The failed system will not operate until it has
been repaired.
(3) The system will be fully repaired whenever it
fails.
158
Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering
Volume 10 · Number 2 · 2004 · 154-164
(4) In this system, the equipment’s failure rate
rm and the critical human error rate rc are
constant.
(5) Equipment breakdown and critical human
errors are mutually independent.
(6) Latent human error can be recovered at rate
G(a) in the time interval [0, a ], and the
system will be as new when it is repaired.
(7) System repair rate r is constant.
(8) There are N persons who operate and
maintain this system.
(9) The maintenance personnel is parameter N
in this model.
(10) Maintenance personnel are identical and
independent.
(11) The system will be stopped when it is being
maintained.
(12) If latent human error exists in the system, it
will be recovered in the tolerant time
interval.
(13) The maintenance task is parallel.
3.3 Analysis of model
In this model, the latent human error has to be
recovered and the supplementary variable
technique is applied to solve this model. As the
supplementary variable technique is applied to this
model, the model becomes a stochastic process.
The supplementary variable can help this model to
record the time period when the latent human
error occurs as well as the state of the system.
The properties of this process are easily
obtained directly, denoting by Pi(t), the probability
that state i is occupied at time t, and:


pi ðt þ Dt Þ ¼ prob: state i at t þ Dtjstate i at t
ð1Þ
Thus we can specify the system as being in state 0,
in state (1, y), states 2, and 3, where state (1, y) is
occupied when the individual is in state 1 and has
been there for time y. The coefficient of P1(t, y) is
now the conditional probability of not broken-
down given y in operating form:
prob: ½state 1 occupied at t having


been entered in t  y  Dy; t  y

p1 ðt;yÞ ¼ lim
Dy!0 Dy
ð2Þ


pn;m t þ Dt; y þ Dtjt; y ¼ limþ
Dy!0
prob:ðy þ Dt , Y , y þ Dt þ Dy; in state n at
t þ Dtjin state m at time t and Y ¼ yÞ
Dy
ð3Þ
 A stochastic maintenance management model Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering
Cheng-Hua Wang and Sheue-Ling Hwang Volume 10 · Number 2 · 2004 · 154-164



To perform mathematical calculations as follows: p xtþDt ¼ 3 ¼ p xtþDt ¼ 3; xt ¼ 3



þ p xtþDt ¼ 3; xt ¼ 0 þ p xtþDt ¼ 3; xt ¼ 1



PðxtþDt ¼ 0Þ ¼ PðxtþDt ¼ 0; xt ¼ 0Þ þ PðxtþDt ¼ 0; þ p xtþDt ¼ 3; xt ¼ 2 ¼ p xtþDt ¼ 3jxt ¼ 3


xt ¼ 1Þ þ PðxtþDt ¼ 0; xt ¼ 2Þ þ PðxtþDt ¼ 0; xt ¼ 3Þ £ pðxt ¼ 3Þ þ p xtþDt ¼ 3jxt ¼ 0 £ pðxt ¼ 0Þ
¼ PðxtþDt ¼ 0jxt ¼ 0Þ £ Pðxt ¼ 0Þ þ PðxtþDt ¼ Z aþDt


0jxt ¼ 2Þ £ Pðxt ¼ 2Þ þ PðxtþDt þ 0jxt ¼ 3Þ £ P þ p xtþDt ¼ 3jxt ¼ 1 £ g Y ðyÞdy
Z Dt
a 
þ p xtþDt ¼ 3jxt ¼ 2 £ pðxt ¼ 2Þ:
ðxt ¼ 3Þ þ pðxtþDt ¼ 0; xt ¼ 1jY ¼ yÞ £ g Y ðyÞdy Z aþDt
0

Z Dt Note p xtþDt ¼ 3jxt ¼ 1 £ g Y ðyÞdy
Note : PðxtþDt ¼ 0; xt ¼ 1jY ¼ yÞ £ g Y ðyÞdy
a 
0 ¼ p xtþDt ¼ 3jxt ¼ 1 £ p1 ðt; yÞ
¼ pðxtþDt ¼ 0jxt Þ ¼ 0Y ¼ yÞ £ P 1 ðt; yÞ: p3 ðt þ Dt Þ ¼ p3 ðtÞ £ ð1  r £ Dt Þ þ p0 ðtÞðrm þ RcÞ
Z aþDt
£ Dt þ p2 ðtÞ £ Rc £ Dt þ gðyÞdy þ 0ðDt Þ:
a
Equation (4) shows the probability of the system in
ð7Þ
state 0 and at time t þ Dt:
The boundary conditions are as follows:
p0 ðt þ DtÞ ¼ p0 ðtÞ £ ð1  rl £ DtÞ £ ½1  ðrm þ rcÞ
Z Dt p1 ðt; 0Þ ¼ rl £ p0 ðtÞ;


£ Dt
þ gðyÞdy þ p2 ðtÞ £ 1  ½1  ðrc þ rmÞ
N } as t ¼ 0; then p0 ð0Þ ¼ 1; p1 o; y ¼ 0; p2 ð0Þ ¼ 0;
0
p3 ð0Þ ¼ 0:
£ Dt þ p3 ðtÞ £ Dt þ oðDtÞ:
ð4Þ
By equation (3), we have that:

Equation (5) shows the probability of the system in

›p1 ðt; yÞ ›p1 ðt; yÞ  
þ þ GðyÞ þ l
state 1, and recovery time has lasted Dt: ›t ›y ð8Þ
£ p1 ðt; yÞ ¼ 0;


p1 ðt þ Dt; y þ DtÞ ¼ p1;1 t þ Dt; y þ Dtjt; y


£ p1 ðt; yÞ þ p1;0 t þ Dt; y þ Dtjt; y £ p0 ðtÞ þ p1;2 p02 ðtÞ þ {R þ Rl þ 1  ½1  ðrl þ rcÞ
N }

 ð9Þ
ðt þ Dt; y þ DtÞ £ p2 ðtÞ; p1 ðt þ Dt; y þ DtÞ £ p2 ðtÞ ¼ P 1 t; y £ l þ P 0 ðtÞ £ l;
 
¼ p1 ðt; yÞ £ 1  gðyÞ £ Dt £ ½1  GðaÞ £ Dt

£ ð1  l £ Dt Þ þ oðDt Þ: p03 ðtÞ þ r £ p3 ðtÞ ¼ p0 ðtÞ £ ðrm þ rcÞ
Note : p1 ð0; yÞ ¼ 0: Z
  ð10Þ
þ p2 ðtÞ £ r þ 1  gðyÞ £ P 2 ðt; yÞdy:
ð5Þ

Use the Laplace transform method to solve

Equation (6) shows the probability of the system in equations (8) to (10):
state 2, at time t þ Dt:

sL p0 ðtÞ  p0 ð0Þ þ ðrl þ l þ rm þ rcÞ £ sL




  
P ¼ 2 ¼ P xtþDt ¼ 2; xt ¼ 2 p0 ðtÞ ¼ sL p3 ðtÞ £ 1  ð1  ðrl þ rcÞÞN


xtþDt

 Z a ð11Þ
þ P xtþDt ¼ 2; xt ¼ 0 þ P xtþDt ¼ 2; xt ¼ 1

 þ gðyÞ £ sLðp1 ðt; yÞÞdy;
¼ P xtþDt ¼ 2jxt ¼ 2 £ P ðxt ¼ 2Þ 0


þ P xtþDt ¼ 2jxt ¼ 0 £ P ðxt þ 0Þ

   ›p1 ðs; yÞ  
þ P xtþDt ¼ 2jxt ¼ 1 £ P ðxt ¼ 1Þ; sL p1 ðt; yÞ þ  p1 ð0; yÞ þ gðyÞ þ GðaÞ þ l
p2 ðt þ Dt Þ ¼ p2 ðtÞ £ ð1  Rl £ Dt Þ £ ð1  R £ Dt Þ ›y

  £ sL p1 ðs; yÞ
¼ 0;
£ , 1  1  ½1  ðrm þ rcÞ
N £ Dt . þp1 ðtÞ
ð12Þ
£ l £ Dt þ p0 ðtÞ £ l £ oðDt Þ:
ð6Þ  
sL p2 ðtÞ  p2 ð0Þ þ Rc þ Rl


þ f1  ½1  ðrl þ rcÞ
N g £ sL p2 ðtÞ ð13Þ
Equation (7) shows the probability of the system in     
state 3, at time t þ Dt: ¼ l sL p0 ðtÞ þ sL P 1 ðt; yÞ ;

159
 A stochastic maintenance management model Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering
Cheng-Hua Wang and Sheue-Ling Hwang Volume 10 · Number 2 · 2004 · 154-164

 
 maintenance personnel and maintenance cycle on

sL p3 ðtÞ  p3 ð0Þ þ r £ sL p3 ðtÞ
  the recovery time can be predicted.
¼ sL p0 ðtÞ £ ðrm þ rcÞ þ sL½p2 ðtÞ
£ Rc
Z 1 ð14Þ A total of 40 students from the Industrial
    Engineering Department in National Tsing Hua
þ 1  gðyÞ £ sL p1 ðt; yÞ dy:
a University participated in this experiment. Among
these 40 subjects, 37 subjects were male. In this
Summary: simulated system (Figure 4), there are two paths
p0 ðsÞ ¼ fðs þ rl þ rm þ rc þ lÞ connecting every tank (pump 1 carries water to
tank 1 and tank 2, pump 2 carries water to tank 1
M3 r l
 £ l £ Q3ðsÞ þ £ ðrm þ rcÞ þ and tank 3, and pump 3 carries water to tank 2 and
M1 sþr M1 tank 3). Every pipeline has two control valves, one
 
£ Q3ðsÞ þ rl £ M2 þ Q1ðsÞ þ GðaÞg1 ; automatic and the other manual.
The experiment comprises two parts. The first
 part was designed to estimate the human error
1
p1 ðsÞ ¼ rl £ ½1  expðsa  la  a rate. There were 15 tasks randomly appearing in
s þ l þ GðaÞ
 the monitor for the subject to operate. Four tasks
£ GðaÞ
 N1ðsÞ £ p0 ðsÞ; are infusing water into one tank, six tasks are
infusing water into two tanks and five tasks are
maintaining the pump or valve. The subject
 Z Dy
 controls the pumps and valves depending on the
l situation portrayed in the monitor.
p2 ðsÞ ¼ ð1 þ rl Þ þ Q1ðsÞ £ exp  gðyÞdy ;
M1 0 The second part was designed to obtain the
detection and recovery time when the latent
human error occurred in the system. In the
l beginning, some pumps and valves were
p3 ðsÞ ¼ £ ðrc þ rmÞ þ p2 ðsÞ þ rl
sþr improperly opened, and the subject had to close

those being opened incorrectly.
£ M2 £ Q1ðsÞ :

Note:
5. Result
M1 ¼ {s þ Rc þ Rlz; þ 1  ½1  ðrl þ rcÞ
N };
M2 ¼ expðla  aGðaÞ þ aÞ; Data (168 units) collected from the reference feed-
water system experiment, were used to calculate
M3 ¼ 1  ½1  ðrl þ rcÞ
N ; the parameters of the mathematical equations.
Z a

  Then, from a simplified mathematical model,
N1ðsÞ ¼ exp sy  ly  GðaÞ £ yÞ £ GðyÞ dy;
different combinations of the maintenance
Z 01

  personnel and the maintenance cycle in each
N2ðsÞ ¼ exp sy  ly  GðaÞ £ yÞ £ gðyÞ dy; degree of system availability can be presented.
a
Z 1 Z Dt
From the result of the data analysis by using the
 
Q1ðsÞ ¼ 1  gðyÞ exp  gðyÞdy statistical package STATISTIC, the recovery time
a 0 (g(y)) fits the gamma distribution where
£ expðy  syÞdy; a ¼ 2:81753, b ¼ 0:138002.To avoid the effect of
 
Q2ðsÞ ¼ exp sy  ly  GðaÞy ; the outlier value, the system tolerance time is
Z Dt
decided by the median of the experimental data. In
Q3ðsÞ ¼ ð1 þ rl Þ þ Q2ðsÞ £ exp  gðyÞdy : the reference feed-water system, the tanks and the
0 channels are fixed, and the subjects operated the
pumps and the valves, hence it was assumed that
4. Experiment the equipment failure rate came from the pump or
the valve. Referring to the data of the WASH-1400
An experiment is conducted by simulating the (US NRC, 1964), the equipment failure rate is set
situation where an operator controls a reference at 0.002. If the system has broken down, it can be
feed-water system of a nuclear power plant. The repaired immediately, hence let the repair rate be
purpose of this experiment is to obtain the raw data 1, rc ¼ 0:0033 (the rate of the critical human
of the probability density function g(y), and some error), rl ¼ 0:16 (the rate of the latent human
parameters in the model, which contains rl and rc. error), rm ¼ 0:002 (the rate of the equipment
These estimated parameters simplify the breakdown), r ¼ 1 (the repair rate of the system),
mathematical equations of the stochastic model, a ¼ 19s (the upper limit of the system tolerance
hence the influence of different numbers of time).
160
 A stochastic maintenance management model
Cheng-Hua Wang and Sheue-Ling Hwang
Figure 4 A reference feed-water system
The system states probabilities are as follows:
P o ðt ! 1Þ ¼ t!1
lim P 0 ðt Þ ¼ lim sP o ðsÞ
s!0
P 1 ðt ! 1Þ ¼ t!1
lim P 1 ðt Þ ¼ lim sP 1 ðsÞ
s!0
P 2 ðt ! 1Þ ¼ t!1
lim P 2 ðt Þ ¼ lim sP 2 ðsÞ
s!0
In the steady state, the system availability is:
AV ¼ t!1
lim ½P 0 ðt Þ þ P 1 ðt ÞP 2 ðt Þ
:
The analytic solution of this model is complex,
therefore, some software packages (MATLAB,
EXCEL, STATISTICAL) are used to solve the
model. By means of software computation, the
system availability can be predicted by the different
combinations of the number of maintenance
personnel and maintenance cycle rate. Table I,
column 1 represents the maintenance cycle (from
0.05 to 1), increasing the value of l means that the
maintenance cycle becomes more frequent. Row 1
represents the different number of maintenance
personnel (from 1 to 10). Various combinations of
maintenance cycle rate and maintenance personnel
number could create predictive system availability.
161
Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering
Volume 10 · Number 2 · 2004 · 154-164
As the parameters obtained from the
experiment are placed in the analytic solution, we
found a significant relationship between the
number of maintenance personnel and the system
availability, and between maintenance cycle and
system availability. When the number of
maintenance personnel is under three, the system
availability increases by the increase of the
maintenance cycle. However, when the number of
maintenance personnel is over seven, the system
availability decreases by the increase of
maintenance cycle. When the maintenance
personnel is between four and six, the availability
curve slightly shows a “U” pattern (Figure 5).
Using the data of the reference feed-water
experiment, the optimal solution for the model is
to dispose two maintenance personnel in the
system under frequent maintenance cycle, so that
the system availability will be over 0.95 (Figure 6).
Limitations have to be considered when the
frequent maintenance cycle is selected. One is that
the frequent maintenance cycle means the system
efficiency is low. The other is that the frequent
maintenance cycle results in higher maintenance
costs.
6. Discussion
In general, the aim of the maintenance
management mathematical models is to find the
 A stochastic maintenance management model Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering
Cheng-Hua Wang and Sheue-Ling Hwang Volume 10 · Number 2 · 2004 · 154-164

Table I System availability on various maintenance cycle rate (l) and number of maintenance personnel (n)
N
l n51 n52 n53 n54 n55 n56 n57 n58 n59 n 5 10
0.05 0.840602 0.839029 0.83312 0.827104 0.824906 0.823446 0.822433 0.821694 0.821138 0.820707
0.1 0.846787 0.845839 0.834169 0.822306 0.817924 0.815016 0.812996 0.811524 0.810415 0.809557
0.15 0.852512 0.851878 0.834563 0.817046 0.810487 0.806146 0.803127 0.800926 0.799268 0.797986
0.2 0.857846 0.857481 0.834614 0.811644 0.802929 0.797157 0.793143 0.790218 0.788013 0.786309
0.25 0.862845 0.862918 0.834569 0.80635 0.795484 0.788294 0.783292 0.779646 0.776899 0.774775
0.3 0.867555 0.868401 0.834626 0.801352 0.78834 0.779745 0.77376 0.769398 0.76611 0.763569
0.35 0.872014 0.874093 0.834933 0.796793 0.781656 0.771652 0.764687 0.75961 0.755785 0.752828
0.4 0.876254 0.88012 0.835606 0.792775 0.775519 0.76411 0.75617 0.750382 0.746021 0.742649
0.45 0.880301 0.886574 0.836728 0.789364 0.76999 0.757188 0.748275 0.741779 0.736883 0.733098
0.5 0.884176 0.893518 0.838356 0.786606 0.765116 0.750927 0.741045 0.733841 0.728413 0.724216
0.55 0.884774 0.900999 0.840532 0.784526 0.760931 0.745351 0.734501 0.726591 0.720631 0.716023
0.6 0.89148 0.909043 0.843276 0.783132 0.757437 0.740467 0.72865 0.720037 0.713545 0.708527
0.65 0.894938 0.917664 0.846602 0.782422 0.754578 0.736272 0.72349 0.714173 0.707151 0.701723
0.7 0.898279 0.926867 0.850509 0.782389 0.752485 0.732755 0.719008 0.708988 0.701436 0.695598
0.75 0.901516 0.936648 0.854993 0.783013 0.751017 0.729897 0.715187 0.704464 0.696383 0.690135
0.8 0.904655 0.946999 0.860045 0.784276 0.750173 0.727679 0.712006 0.70058 0.691969 0.685312
0.85 0.907704 0.957904 0.865648 0.786152 0.750171 0.726076 0.709438 0.69731 0.68817 0.681103
0.9 0.910668 0.969347 0.871785 0.788961 0.750317 0.725061 0.70746 0.694629 0.684959 0.677483
0.95 0.913551 0.98131 0.878437 0.791648 0.751254 0.724609 0.706044 0.69251 0.68231 0.674425
1 0.91636 0.993771 0.885583 0.795215 0.752712 0.724692 0.705163 0.690926 0.680197 0.671902

Figure 5 The relationship between system availability and number of maintenance personnel

optimum balance between the costs and benefits of
maintenance. Quantitative models focus on
numeric analysis, and they can lead to the
following four outcomes. First of all, maintenance
policies can be evaluated and compared
considering cost effectiveness and system
availability. Second, maintenance performance
can be obtained from the structure of optimal
policies. Third, models can assist in the timing
aspect: how often to inspect or maintain. Finally,
models can also be of help in determining effective
162
and efficient schedules and plans. Maintenance
actions may be performed either at discrete times
or continuously. Many researchers use a stochastic
process to formulate effective maintenance
management actions to reduce equipment failures
and derive optimal maintenance policies (Murthy
and Hwang, 1996; Dedopoulos and Shah, 1995).
In the simulated reference feed-water system
experiment, the latent human error rate reaches
0.16. If the latent error has not been recovered in
time, it may seriously diminish system maintenance
 A stochastic maintenance management model
Cheng-Hua Wang and Sheue-Ling Hwang
Figure 6 The relationship between system availability and maintenance cycle
performance. The recovery action can be viewed as
an immediate maintenance action, and recovering
the human latent errors is valuable for maintenance
management. In addition, from this experiment,
the human error types and human latent error
recovery time are obtained. To classify the human
errors and to fit the distribution function of recovery
time are very helpful for designing a real
maintenance management system. For preventing
critical human error in the maintenance
management task, the recovery factor should be
considered especially with respect to maintenance
personnel training.
Generally, the recovery function is designed in
the operation system for the operator to improve
the operation performance (Dhillon, 1986). In this
paper, the recovery factor has been taken into
account in the model of maintenance management
so that the system availability can be estimated
more precisely.
Most results of research on maintenance
personnel allocation, maintenance cycle time
formulation, policies are subject to cost (Jayabalan
and Chaudhuri, 1992; Dohi et al., 1998;
Gopalakrishnan et al., 1997). In this study, the
system availability is a criterion for allocating
maintenance personnel and formulating the
maintenance cycle time. Based on the criterion, the
optimal combination of the number of maintenance
personnel and maintenance cycle can be found for
improving maintenance management performance.
In other words, too many maintenance personnel or
too frequent maintenance would not increase the
system availability.
163
Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering
Volume 10 · Number 2 · 2004 · 154-164
As to the advantages of qualitative models, the
current qualitative models deal with maintenance
quality and system availability, especially those not
easily quantified by strict mathematical models.
This paper dealt with a model that incorporates
equipment failure rate and human error rate by
using a stochastic process and the supplementary
variables estimated from a simulated experiment
to solve the optimal maintenance personnel
allocation and maintenance cycle. This integral
quantitative and qualitative model provides a
simple and practical solution to the maintenance
problem. With the exception of the maintenance
cycle and maintenance personnel, other
parameters were obtained by the simulated
experiment. Thus, this maintenance management
model could reduce the complexity of the previous
mathematical models, and it can be applied to
various maintenance management fields as long as
the related parameters are obtained.
In this model, system availability is used as a
performance evaluation criterion and cost is not
considered although it is an important aspect of
maintenance management. Hence, for the further
study, this model can be modified to estimate the
maintenance management total cost.
7. Conclusion
The analytic solution of the stochastic model in
this study is as complex as the general
mathematical maintenance management model.
Nevertheless, some parameters in the model such as
 A stochastic maintenance management model
Cheng-Hua Wang and Sheue-Ling Hwang
human error rate and a system’s tolerance time were
obtained from a simulated reference feed-water
system experiment, and that significantly reduced
the complexity of this analytic solution model.
Furthermore, a recovery factor was incorporated
into the maintenance management task that more
precisely estimated system availability.
Mathematical maintenance management
models deal objectively with maintenance
schedule, cost, and policy, whereas qualitative
maintenance management models focus on
personnel training, partner relationships, and
maintenance data collection which are not easily
quantified by a strict mathematical model.
Combining the advantages of both approaches,
this study derives an integrated objective
quantitative analysis method and a reasonable
qualitative maintenance management model to
evaluate maintenance management performance,
and provides a more active concept of the recovery
factor to increase system availability. The
contributions of this paper are as follows:
.
integrates the advantages of a quantitative and
qualitative maintenance management model
for evaluating the maintenance performance
precisely;
.
provides a system availability table of the
various numbers of maintenance personnel
and maintenance cycle time which can be a
practical reference for the maintenance
manager; and
.
incorporation of a recovery function into
maintenance management task, which can
prevent system breakdown and improve the
system availability.
Further study can be investigated in the following
directions:
.
applying the technology of multiple criteria
decision making so that system availability,
maintenance cost and maintenance
performance can be traded-off more
appropriately; and
.
based on the present model, maintenance
management decision support systems can be
developed for on-line maintenance
management.
References
Anderson, R.T. and Neri, L. (1990), Reliability-Centred
Maintenance – Management and Method, Elsevier
Science Publishing, New York, NY.
Berg, M. (1984), “A preventive replacement policy for units
subject to intermittent demand”, Operations Research,
Vol. 32, pp. 584-95.
British Standards Institution (1984), BS 3811 Glossary of
Maintenance Terms in Tero-technology, British Standards
Institution, London.
Cox, D.R. and Milles, H.D. (1968), The Theory of Stochastic
Process, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
164
Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering
Volume 10 · Number 2 · 2004 · 154-164
Dedopoulos, I.T. and Shah, N. (1995), “Preventive maintenance
policy optimization for multipurpose plant equipment”,
Computers & Chemical Engineering, Vol. 19, pp. 693-8.
Dekker, R. (1996), “Application of maintenance optimization
model: a review and analysis”, Reliability Engineering and
System Safety, Vol. 51, pp. 229-40.
Dey, D.K. and Jaisingh, L.R. (1988), “Estimation of system
availability for independent series components with
Weibull life distributions”, IEEE Transactions on Reliability,
Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 401-5.
Dhillon, B.S. (1986), Human Reliability with Human Factors,
Pergamon Press, New York, NY.
Dirickx, Y.M.I. and Kistner, K.P. (1979), “Reliability of a repairable
system with redundant units and preventive maintenance”,
IEEE Transactions on Reliability, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 170-1.
Dohi, T., Kaio, N. and Osaki, S. (1998), “Minimal repair policies for
an economic manufacturing process”, Journal of Quality in
Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 248-62.
Dohi, T., Ashoko, A., Kaio, N. and Osaki, S. (2001), “Optimizing
the repair-time limit replacement schedule with
discounting and imperfect repair”, Journal of Quality in
Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 71-84.
Gopalakrishnan, M., Ahire, S.L. and Miller, D.M. (1997),
“Maximizing the effectiveness of a preventive
maintenance system: an adaptive modeling approach”,
Management Science, Vol. 43 No. 6, pp. 827-40.
Gupta, A. (1981), “Reduced tree search for optimal preventive
maintenance of generating facilities”, IEEE Transactions
on Reliability, Vol. R-30, pp. 476-7.
Jardine, A.K.S. (1973), Maintenance Replacement and Reliability,
Pitman Publishing, London.
Jayabalan, V. and Chaudhuri, D. (1992), “Cost optimization of
maintenance scheduling for a system with assured
reliability”, IEEE Transactions on Reliability, Vol. 41 No. 1,
pp. 21-5.
Maggard, B.N. and Rhyne, D.M. (1992), “Total productive
maintenance: a timely integration of production and
maintenance”, Production and Inventory Management
Journal, pp. 6-10.
Murthy, D.N.P. and Hwang, M.C. (1996), “Optimal discrete and
continuous maintenance policy for a complex unreliable
machine”, International Journal of Systems Science,
Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 483-95.
Nakajima, S. (1986), “TPM challenge to the improvement of
productivity by small group activities”, Maintenance
Management International, Vol. 6, pp. 52-6.
Nowlan, F.S. and Heap, H.F. (1978), Reliability-centered
Maintenance, Technical Report AD/A066-579, Dolby
Access Press, San Francisco, CA.
Pat-Cornell, M.E., Lee, H.L. and Tagaras, G. (1987), “Warning of
malfunctions: the decision to inspect and maintain
processes on schedule or on demand”, Management
Science, Vol. 33 No. 10, pp. 1277-90.
Sherif, Y.S. (1982), “Reliability analysis: optimal inspection and
maintenance schedules of failing systems”, Micro-
Reliability, Vol. 22, pp. 59-115.
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) (1964), Reactor Safety
Study: An Assessment of Accident Risks in US Commercial
Nuclear Power Plants, WASH-1400 (NUREG-75/014), US
NRC, Washington, DC.
Further reading
Canfild, R.V. (1986), “Cost optimization of periodic preventive
maintenance”, IEEE Transactions on Reliability, Vol. 35,
pp. 78-81.