International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management

Emerald Article: A sensitivity analysis of an optimal Gantt charting maintenance scheduling model S.A. Oke, O.E. Charles-Owaba

Article information:
To cite this document: S.A. Oke, O.E. Charles-Owaba, (2006),"A sensitivity analysis of an optimal Gantt charting maintenance scheduling model", International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 23 Iss: 2 pp. 197 - 229 Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02656710610640952 Downloaded on: 19-07-2012 References: This document contains references to 63 other documents Citations: This document has been cited by 1 other documents To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com This document has been downloaded 2481 times since 2006. *

Users who downloaded this Article also downloaded: *

James DeLisle, Terry Grissom, (2011),"Valuation procedure and cycles: an emphasis on down markets", Journal of Property Investment & Finance, Vol. 29 Iss: 4 pp. 384 - 427 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14635781111150312 Shana Wagger, Randi Park, Denise Ann Dowding Bedford, (2010),"Lessons learned in content architecture harmonization and metadata models", Aslib Proceedings, Vol. 62 Iss: 4 pp. 387 - 405 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00012531011074645 Sandrine Roginsky, Sally Shortall, (2009),"Civil society as a contested field of meanings", International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, Vol. 29 Iss: 9 pp. 473 - 487 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443330910986261

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by OXFORD BROOKES UNIVERSITY For Authors: If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service. Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0265-671X.htm

A sensitivity analysis of an optimal Gantt charting maintenance scheduling model

S.A. Oke
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Lagos, Lagos, Nigeria, and

Analysis of optimal Gantt charting 197

Received October 2005 Revised April 2005 Accepted April 2005

O.E. Charles-Owaba
Department of Industrial and Production Engineering, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to work on an analytical approach to test sensitivity of a maintenance-scheduling model. Any model without sensitivity analysis is a paper work without advancing for wider applications. Thus, the simulation of simultaneous scheduling of maintenance and operation in a resource-constrained environment is very important in quality problem and especially in maintenance. Design/methodology/approach The paper uses an existing model and presents a sensitivity analysis by utilising an optimal initial starting transportation tableau. This is used as input into the Gantt charting model employed in the traditional production scheduling system. The degree of responsiveness of the model parameters is tested. Findings The paper concludes that some of these parameters and variables are sensitive to changes in values while others are not. Research limitations/implications The maintenance engineering community is exposed to various optimal models in the resource-constraint-based operational and maintenance arena. However, the models do lack the sensitivity analysis where the present authors have worked. The work seems signicant since the parameters have the boundary values so the user knows where he can apply the model after considering the constraints therein. Originality/value The underlying quest for testing the sensitivity of the model parameters of a maintenance scheduling model in a multi-variable operation and maintenance environment with resource constraints is a novel approach. An optimal solution has to be tested for robustness, considering the complexity of the variables and criteria. The objective to test the model parameters is a rather new approach in maintenance engineering discipline. The work hopefully opens a wide gate of research opportunity for members of the maintenance scheduling community. Keywords Maintenance, Production scheduling, Sensitivity analysis, Cost analysis Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction For decades, the intellectual activities in the maintenance scheduling community have been successful (Enscore and Burns, 1983; Fwa et al., 1999, Garver, 1972, Haghani and Shafahi, 2002; Hall, 2000; Higgins et al., 1999; Marwali and Shahidehpour, 1998a, b;
The authors would like to express their gratitude to both referees for their valuable comments and constructive criticism.

International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management Vol. 23 No. 2, 2006 pp. 197-229 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0265-671X DOI 10.1108/02656710610640952

IJQRM 23,2

198

Stremel and Jenkins, 1981; Walker et al., 2001). The central focus has been on the development of schedules with heuristic approaches since optimal schedules proved difcult due the non-polynomial (NP) hard inherent problems associated with it (Atkinson et al., 2003; Billinton and Pan, 1998; Charest and Ferland, 1993; Chattopadhyay et al., 1995; El-Sheikhi and Billinton, 1984). A number of pre-determined criteria are used to develop frameworks within which the practising maintenance engineering or research scholar could work (Burke et al., 1998; Burke and Smith, 1999a, b). A breakthrough in research resulted in the development of optimal solutions for single machine systems (El-Sheikhi and Billinton, 1984; Lund, 1990). Variants of this optimal solutions have however, been introduced (Christiaanse, 1973; Dapazo and Merrill, 1975; Yamayee et al., 1998; Zurn and Quintana, 1977). Some of these are single machine job sequencing with precedence constraint, single machine scheduling to minimise weighted sum of completion time with secondary criterion, single machine sequencing with ordered constraint, etc. (Chen and Toyoda, 1990; Yellen et al., 1992). With increased technological sophistication and international competitiveness maintenance professionals are compelled to revisit the state-of-the-art of maintenance scheduling at that time (Oke, 2004a; Yamayee, 1982). Thus, researchers were challenged to expand the theoretical frameworks for single machine systems to two and three machines system due to increased complexity of systems. As development in technology increased, researchers and practitioners soon realised that the scheduling problem is more complex than that of scheduling a few number of machines. In modern industrial and service systems, the scheduling of several tenths and hundredths of machines or facilities may be the challenge (Contaxis et al., 1989; Coudert et al., 2000; Dahal and McDonald, 1997; Duffuaa and Al-sultan, 1997; Egan et al., 1976; Joshi and Gupta, 1996; Lake and Ferreira, 2001; Marwali and Shahidehpour, 1998a, b). Examples of such cases exist in eet of aircraft, eet of vehicles, vessels of ships, and a number of machines. Complication is introduced in cases where non-identical facilities are to be scheduled. Research documentation reveals success in the maintenance scheduling of such multiple machines or facilities under various conditions. Successful efforts have also been made in the scheduling of such multiple facilities for operations (Christiannse and Palmer, 1991; Hariga, 1994; Khatib, 1979; Kurban, 1999; Stremel, 1981). Unfortunately, only of late is there a successful effort that considers the simultaneous scheduling of resource-constrained operations and maintenance. The credit for the development of such a novel work is due to Charles-Owaba (2002). The integration of operations scheduling models with maintenance scheduling models is important in view of the fact that the two functions operations and maintenance, are viewed as important to the prot generation of the organisation. Traditionally, the operations department is viewed as the prot yielding function for the organisation while the maintenance department is currently viewed as the value adding function instead of the former viewpoint of being a bottomless pit of expenses. While it has been established that optimal solutions could be formulated for the simultaneous scheduling of resource-constrained maintenance and operations, it seems that no documentation exist on how to test the robustness of the model or its sensitivity analysis. The issue of sensitivity analysis is of prime importance to us in this work, and is thereby addressed. The specic problem whose formulated solution is tested for sensitivity is dened as follows:

Given a set of M machines for preventive maintenance and operations in T contiguous periods, limited periodic maintenance capacity (Aj), duration (Bj) per maintenance visit, arrival periods (ki) and number of visits per machine (Ni) select the periods for alternate preventive maintenance and operations such that the total preventive maintenance cost is minimum.

Analysis of optimal Gantt charting 199

A theoretical framework for the model is built and described with the assumptions that a cycle of activities occur in maintenance operation order, the total number of maintenance-operation period (T) are xed and contiguous, and an arriving machine has its maintenance activities commenced only when resources are available. The criterion is the minimisation of preventive maintenance cost subject to the constraint that maintenance capacity is limited (see Figure 1) (Bar-Noy et al., 1998; Chattopadhyay et al., 1995; Lake et al., 2000; Silver and Murphy, 1994). Figure 1 shows the conceptual model of the problem whose model is tested for sensitivity. The fundamental question of the model sensitivity to small variations in parameters and variable is addressed. The sensitivity analysis identies the model aspects most susceptible to uncertainties in the model development by varying each parameter by some accounts and run the model in each case to see which parameters have the greatest impact on model performance. The introductory part of the paper is concluded by noting that in recent years, there has been a gradual change of attitude of company executives and other practitioners on the role of maintenance in adding value to the organisations products and services. The viewpoint towards the maintenance function has changed from a bottomless pit of expenses to the life wire of the organisation. As a result of this, conscious efforts are made by maintenance practitioners towards improving their efciency and hence optimising the organisational performance. In an effort to achieve these objectives, several techniques have been implemented in practice. One of these widely accepted techniques is the use of maintenance scheduling models and tools (Khan and Hadara, 2003; Kin et al., 1997; Kobbacy et al., 1997; Satoh and Nara, 1991; Sriskandarajah et al., 1998; Wang et al., 2002; Zurn and Quintana, 1975). At the early stage of research, a number of scholars were perhaps frustrated with the non-polynomial (NP) hard problems that are seemingly difcult to solve. Fortunately there seems to be a recent breakthrough in the formulation and solution of maintenance scheduling models. One of the models proposed, which is treated in this work is christened Charles-Owabas Gantt charting (OGC) model. As a further step toward improvement of the model there is currently a great need for an article that investigates into the sensitivity of some of the proposed models in

Figure 1. Structural model of Charles-Owabas OGC model

IJQRM 23,2

this domain. This aim is pursued in the current paper. In particular, the degree of responsiveness of the models variables and parameters to changes in values are investigated. 2. Related literature The literature on sensitivity analysis is wide and all encompassing, covering several scientic elds. Even in the engineering elds, extensive work has been done on the subject. Unfortunately, there seems no documentation on cross-studies between sensitivity analysis and maintenance scheduling, which is the main focus of the present work. As such, the present paper appears to be a front-line study in this area. The review of the literature is approached by carrying out an extensive survey on the work done so far on maintenance scheduling (Mosley et al., 1998; Nguyen and Murthy, 1981; Percy et al., 1997, 1998; Ram and Olumolade, 1987; Sarker and Yu, 1995). The aim is to identify important studies, relate them to the current, and conclude on the need for the present work. Thus, this work is for the benet of maintenance professionals and scholars in the area of maintenance scheduling. For this purpose, the work carried out by Oke (2004a) may be a helpful reference to authenticate our claim that there is a great need for an article presenting a scientic viewpoint of sensitivity analysis as it relates to maintenance scheduling. Oke (2004a) reviewed a variety of applications in maintenance scheduling, notably, aircraft maintenance, process industry, pavement maintenance, highway maintenance, renery, and production facilities. On aircraft, Alfares (1999) investigated the scheduling of an aircraft maintenance workforce. The paper describes an aircraft maintenance labour scheduling study. The studys objectives is to determine the optimum maintenance workforce schedule to satisfy growing labour requirements with minimum cost. The main recommendation of the study is to switch from a ve- to a seven-day workweek for aircraft maintenance workers. A new integer programming formulation, used to obtain an optimum seven-day work schedule with no increase in workforce size, is presented. In comparison to the existing ve-day schedule, switching to a seven-day workweek is expected to produce savings of about 13 per cent, or $100,000 annually. Unfortunately, the integer programming formulation proposed on the work was not tested for sensitivity. This is an important deciency of the work. In a related work Anily et al. (1998) study a discrete problem of scheduling in machines, M, . . . , Mm, in an innite time horizon discrete time. The cost of operating a machine at any given period, C(t, p), is a liner cost structure where each machine i is associated with a constraint ai and the cost of operating the machine in the jth period after the last maintenance of that machine is jai for j $ 0. The problem is to nd an optimal policy such that the average cost over period 1, t is minimum. Although the model proposed appears appealing and benecial to the maintenance scheduling community, no record is shown on the test of sensitivity of the model. Without this, it becomes difcult to conclude on a wide applicability of the model. Yet in another work, Anily et al. (1999) consider a situation in which the performance of a machine deteriorates over time until it receives a maintenance service and there are three machines, M1, M2 and M3 to be served and each with the same service time of one time unit. Associated with each machine, mi, is a cost constant, ai.. The cost of operating Mi during a period in which it is serviced is 0. The cost of

200

operating it in the jth period after its last service is jai. The cost of operating Mi in the jth period after the last maintenance of that machine is jai, for i 1, 2, 3 and j $ 0. A policy p to the m-machine problem is a sequence, ii, i2 . . . , where ii 1 {1, . . . , m} for K 1, 2 . . . donates the machine scheduled for service during the kth period. For example a cyclic service sequence with a basic cycled 1123, the average cost of the policy is 3a1 6a2 6a3 =4 for a policy P, let C(t, p) denote the average cost over periods 1, . . . , t. The average cost C p Tim C t ; p. Anily et al. (1999) observed that for the two-machine problem, with a1 $ a2 , there is an optimal cyclic solution in which M2 is serviced exactly in a basic cycle and there exists an optimal basic cycle of length t2, which is the unique integer satisfying tt 2 2 1t 2 # 2a1 =a2 , t 2 t2 1. Here, the minimum average cost is given by C 12 a2 t2 2 1=2 a1 =t2 . They also compared the average cost of S0 to that of S to obtain: a2 t 2 t 2 t 2 2 a3 t2 t3 2 t 2 a2 t 2 t 2 t2 2 a3 t 3 t 2 1 2 t2 $ C s 2 C s0 T s T s a2 t 2 a2 2 a3 t2 t 2 1 2 t 2 $ a2 t 2 . 0: T s

Analysis of optimal Gantt charting 201

Unfortunately, the paper by Anily et al. (1999) did not address the issue of sensitivity analysis of the model parameters. This important gap is addressed in the current work. The same anomaly was observed in the work by Bar-Noy et al. (1998). The author solved a general problem of scheduling machines {1 . . . m} for maintenance over an innite discrete time horizon, in which at most M machines can be scheduled in each time slot. The schedule with m machines is S S 1 , S2 . . . where St # {1, . . . m} and =S t = # i for all t $ 1. Here, i 1 St means that machine P I is scheduled for maintenance at time-slot t. The maintenance cost at time-slot t is i1StCi. The operating cost of ( j) of machine j at time-slot t is aj t 2 t 1 b for integer b $ 0, where t1 # t is the largest time-slot at which j 1 St1. (We assume that all machines are maintained at time-slot 0 in S). Not that the operating cost is incurred in all time-slots but could be zero at time slot t if i 1Est and b 0. We want to nd a schedule S minimising: 0 1 n M X X 1 lim X @ Ci Oi j A: hn!a t1 i[ST J I Also, no indication about the treatment of sensitivity model was discussed. Another article of prominent importance to maintenance scheduling is based on heuristic optimisation algorithm (Adzakpa et al., 2004). The work centres on an heuristic-based optimisation algorithm for online scheduling and assignment of preventive maintenance jobs to processors, to minimise under availability constraints, on a given time-window, and the total cost of the maintenance operatives of a distributed system. This algorithm minimises the cost of carrying out preventive maintenance tasks or jobs, while assigning the tasks along with balancing the processor load. This work also has not considered the important concept of sensitivity in the test of the model.

IJQRM 23,2

202

In Samanayake and Yu (1995), an investigation into the application of unitary software was made. The computer programme is composed of the critical path method (CPM), materials requirements planning (MRP) and production activity control (PAC) techniques, to the management of large-scale maintenance activities (specially aircraft maintenance). The structure is reported to have been previously applied to the manufacturing (i.e. assembly) process, but lately applied to the maintenance problem. Although the authors claim a wide application of the model, no documentation exists on the sensitivity analysis of the model. In concluding the literature review, the current authors re-visit the specic studies on optimal Gantt charting. Since the development of the optimal Gantt charting some years ago, a small number of studies have extended the knowledge in this domain. The principal studies are due to Oke (2004a, b). In one of the studies, a literature review is made (Oke, 2004a). In the other a reformulation of the model to incorporate an ination factor was conducted. Thus, we complement the efforts of the original proponent of the model (i.e. Charles-Owaba, 2002) and the other investigator (Oke, 2004a, b) to analyze scientically the sensitivity test of this increasingly acceptable model. This is obviously a research gap in the literature that is closed in the current work.

3. Model framework The original OGC model proposed by Charles-Owaba (2002) is based on an integrated framework of the traditional transportation tableau and the Gantt chart. It was developed on the premise that an initial feasible solution could be obtained from the calculations of cost in the transportation model. This optimal cost, which would display the assignments of machines at various time intervals would then be blotted on a Gantt chart which would show the schedule of activities, the possible optimal preventive maintenance cost, the operations period, the maintenance period and the idle time. The transportation tableau (see Appendix, Figure A1) is a structured methodology used for distribution problems, but has its importance and application in maintenance scheduling. The original model by Charles Owaba is a linearised form of the transportation model. The demand and supply points of the traditional transportation model are converted into maintenance capacity and duration constraints. Using an optimal solution approach (Vogels Approximation Method), the pursuit in the calculation is to nd the minimum transportation cost from sources to destinations. The same idea was adopted in Charles Owabas model with sources and destinations substituted for number of vehicles and the period to be spent by each vehicle for preventive maintenance. For the OGC model, the cost to be minimised is called the total preventive maintenance cost. This is the sum of the cost that the maintenance of vehicles would be at the assigned periods. The individual cost of preventive maintenance for each vehicle is referred to as the period-dependent cost function. Since the traditional transportation model could be transformed to a linear function, Charles-Owaba found it convenient to express the model in a linearised form. The model has the objective function of minimising the total preventive maintenance cost (see equation (1) below) subject to two constraints of maintenance capacity and duration (see equations (2) and (3) below respectively). Mathematically, we could express the OGC model as follows.

Minimise
M X T X C T ; M ; Y ij C ij Y ij j1 j1

Analysis of optimal Gantt charting 203

subject to:
M X j1

Y ij # Aj maintenance capacity constraint

and
T X i1

Y ij

Ni X r 1

Br i:

In order to lay a good foundation for explaining the structure of the OGC model, the following notations used in the OGC model and the sensitivity analysis that follows are dened as: T M Yij i j Cij Br i Ni Aj total number of periods in planning horizons. total number of machines in maintenance system. the binary Gantt charting variable. index indicating machine identify. index indicating period. the unit cost of maintaining machine i at period j. the number of periods needed to maintain vehicle i at the rth visit. the total number of visits vehicle I can make for maintenance within the time horizon T. the maintenance capacity at period j (number of vehicles that can be maintained in period j.

To a curious reader, the question may be: How do I relate equations (1), (2) and (3) with the transportation tableau for the Vogels Approximation Method (VAM) shown in the Appendix, Figure A1?. The C(T, M, Yij) function on the right-hand side of equation (1) is the sum of the individual cells where allocations for maintenance servicing for each vehicle is made. Mathematically, it is: 15:23 1 35:63 1 39:03 1 42:43 1 45:33 1 22 1 29:8 1 37:6 1 ::: 44:4 1 : This gives a value of N311.45 (where N is the Nigerian currency). The data in the transportation tableau are the same has those presented in the original work of Charles Owaba but with the application of VAM. From the right hand side of equation (1), the

IJQRM 23,2

204

P PT expression M j1 j1 C ij Y ij is all the elements that we have added together to obtain N311.45. The Cij, which is the period-dependent cost function are shown in the boxes as 15.23, 18.63, 22.03 . . . respectively in cells (1, 6), (1, 7) and (1, 8). The Yij which has a binary values of 0 and 1 shows at what period the vehicle is to be maintained. For the rst vehicle, the solution obtained (see the Appendix, Figure A1) suggests that the preventive maintenance to be carried out on vehicle (1) should be done in periods 6, 12, 13, 14 and 15 while the vehicle should not be scheduled for maintenance at periods 7 to 11. It should be clear that in boxes where Cij are not assigned, the cost is not feasible at that period. This is represented with cells not having allocations but with the mathematical symbol / (innity or non-feasible). Equations (2) and (3) are constraints for the problem at hand while equation (2) represents the maintenance capacity constraints, equation (3) reects the duration constraints. Maintenance capacity in the context of this paper refers to the maximum number of vehicles the system could service in view of the limitations of manpower and space resources. Therefore, any extra vehicle beyond this capacity may have to wait until the number of vehicles on queue is reduced to a level that waiting vehicles could be accommodated. For a numerical interpretation of expression (2), consider a P row. For row (1), M i1 Y ij is equal to 2. This should be less or equal to Aj. For
Vehicle 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Unit cost (Cij) 305.3 778.3 672 1,068.75 160.2 783 869 643.5 452.4 726.6 1,042.58 666 ai 5 3 3 4 2 5 2 3 3 3 3 4 di 0 0 7 0 3 1 0 0 0 1 0 7 t 10 12 5 11 10 9 13 12 12 11 11 4

Table I. The values of Cij, ai, di and t for the vehicles

i 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

dai/dt 5 2 3=10 2 12 21 3 2 3=12 2 5 0 3 2 4=5 2 11 21=6 4 2 2=11 2 10 2 2 2 5=10 2 9 23 5 2 2=9 2 13 23=4 2 2 3=13 2 12 21 3 2 3=12 2 12 1 3 2 3=12 2 11 0 3 2 3=11 2 11 0 3 2 4=11 2 4 21=7

ddi/dt 0 2 0=10 2 12 0 0 2 7=12 2 5 21 7 2 0=5 2 11 27=4 0 2 3=11 2 10 23 3 2 1=10 2 9 2 1 2 0=9 2 13 1=4 0 2 0=13 2 2 0 0 2 0=12 2 12 1 0 2 1=12 2 11 21 1 2 0=1 2 11 1 0 2 7=11 2 4 21

Table II. Analysis of sensitivity

% change in cost, Cij 2 62.5 2 59.375 2 56.25 2 53.125 2 50 2 46.875 2 43.75 2 40.625 2 37.5 2 34.375 2 31.25 2 28.125 2 25 2 21.875 2 18.75 2 15.625 2 12.5 2 9.375 2 6.25 2 3.125 0 3.125 6.25 9.375 12.5 15.625 18.75 21.875 25 28.125 31.25 34.375 37.5 40.625 43.75 46.875 50 53.125 56.25 59.375 62.5 65.625 68.75 71.875 75 78.125 81.25 84.375 87.5 90.625

% change in cost parameter, a 2 100 2 95 2 90 2 85 2 80 2 75 2 70 2 65 2 60 2 55 2 50 2 45 2 40 2 35 2 30 2 25 2 20 2 15 2 10 25 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145

Cost, Cij 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61

Cost parameter, a 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 (continued )

Analysis of optimal Gantt charting 205

Table III. Cost, Cij and cost parameter, a

IJQRM 23,2

% change in cost, Cij 93.75 96.875 100 103.125 106.25 109.375 112.5 115.625 118.75 121.875 125

% change in cost parameter, a 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190 195 200

Cost, Cij 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72

Cost parameter, a 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

206

Table III.

equation (3), Bi is a reection of the total duration available for servicing vehicles that come into the workshop or machines in production. After the development of the transportation tableau (the Appendix, Figure A1) the next stage is to construct the Gantt chart as shown in the Appendix, Figure A2. The locations where 1 are lled in the transportation tableau would have to be shaded black, while vehicle operations periods are also shaded but on a lighter scale. However, the space for the idle time in the Gantt chart is left blank. For a good interpretation of the transformation from the transportation tableau to the Gantt chart, consider the activities of vehicle 1. Since periods 6, 12, 13, 14 and 15 have the allocations of 1, we have shaded these in Appendix, Figure A2 with a black shade. Vehicle 1 is expected to be in operation between periods 7 and 11. On the other hand, the vehicle would be idle between periods 1 and 5. By revisiting the transportation tableau, we could easily identify the cost function that is at the northeast corner of every cell referred to as period dependent cost function (Cij). In the model suggested by Charles-Owaba, this cost function is regarded as a linear expression. This is the main variable of interest to us in the current work. Thus, the sensitivity of the components of these cost functions are examined. Mathematically, the following expression for the period dependent cost function is true: C ij ai di j 2 k: 4

Since the concept of sensitivity analysis is based on the gradient theory, it may be interesting to nd out the application of this theory in equation (4) above. Therefore, in the calculations that follow, we shall consider nding the slope of expression (4) by differentiating Cij with respect to its component parameters. The rst attempt would be by differentiating Cij with respect to a. Here, we apply a partial derivative to obtain C ij =a 1 0 2 0 1. Therefore, Changes in C ij =Changes in a 1. By considering the next parameter, di, the partial differential of Cij with respect to di gives a mathematical expression stated as C ij =di 0 j 2 k. Furthermore, on differentiating Cij with respect to k we have C ij =k 0 0 2 di di also, C ij =j 0 0 di . Since the situation that we are considering is a planned maintenance system when preventive maintenance activities are scheduled and implemented for specic maintenance periods, then the values of j and k are

% change in cost, Cij 2 37.5 2 35.625 2 33.75 2 31.875 2 30 2 28.125 2 26.25 2 24.375 2 22.5 2 20.625 2 18.75 2 16.875 2 15 2 13.125 2 11.25 2 9.375 2 7.5 2 5.625 2 3.75 2 1.875 0 1.875 3.75 5.625 7.5 9.375 11.25 13.125 15 16.875 18.75 20.625 22.5 24.375 26.25 28.125 30 31.875 33.75 35.625 37.5 39.375 41.25 43.125 45 46.875 48.75 50.625 52.5 54.375

% change in cost parameter, d 2 100 2 95 2 90 2 85 2 80 2 75 2 70 2 65 2 60 2 55 2 50 2 45 2 40 2 35 2 30 2 25 2 20 2 15 2 10 25 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145

Cost, Cij 20 20.6 21.2 21.8 22.4 23 23.6 24.2 24.8 25.4 26 26.6 27.2 27.8 28.4 29 29.6 30.2 30.8 31.4 32 32.6 33.2 33.8 34.4 35 35.6 36.2 36.8 37.4 38 38.6 39.2 39.8 40.4 41 41.6 42.2 42.8 43.4 44 44.6 45.2 45.8 46.4 47 47.6 48.2 48.8 49.4

Cost parameter, d 0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.7 3 3.3 3.6 3.9 4.2 4.5 4.8 5.1 5.4 5.7 6 6.3 6.6 6.9 7.2 7.5 7.8 8.1 8.4 8.7 9 9.3 9.6 9.9 10.2 10.5 10.8 11.1 11.4 11.7 12 12.3 12.6 12.9 13.2 13.5 13.8 14.1 14.4 14.7 (continued )

Analysis of optimal Gantt charting 207

Table IV. Cost, Cij and cost parameter, d

IJQRM 23,2

% change in cost, Cij 56.25 58.125 60 61.875 63.75 65.625 67.5 69.375 71.25 73.125 75

% change in cost parameter, d 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190 195 200

Cost, Cij 50 50.6 51.2 51.8 52.4 53 53.6 54.2 54.8 55.4 56

Cost parameter, d 15 15.3 15.6 15.9 16.2 16.5 16.8 17.1 17.4 17.7 18

208

Table IV.

constants. Now, we would consider the total derivative since it would take care of both independent variables a and d. Then, we have a new equation:

dC ij

C ij C ij :dai :dd i : ai d i

We can either substitute the values of the partial derivatives C ij =ai and C ij =di into equation (5) or further observe equation (5) would vary with time. By considering the latter option, we would have a new expression as follows: dC ij C ij dai C ij ddi : : : dt ai dt di dt

By substituting the values of the partial derivatives obtained earlier, then expression (6) changes its form to (7) below: dC ij dai dd i i j 2 k : dt dt dt

In order to apply equation (7) to the data tested in this work, we utilise Table I. Table I consists of the unit cost incurred for each of the vehicles (Cij), ai, di and t. Using the data in Table I, the slopes for both cost parameters i.e. dai =dt; dd i =dt was evaluated as shown below. This is based on the fact that dai =dt Da=Dt change in a=change in t . These steps apply to dd i =dt . The following results are obtained in the analysis shown in Table II. However, on getting the value of the slopes, it was discovered that some values were innity. Statistics will therefore be applied. The mean of the dened values will be taken to get a representative value for each of dai =dt and ddi =dt . Therefore, using the formula for arithmetic mean (ignoring the innite slopes).

% change in cost, Cij 2 93.75 2 89.0625 2 84.375 2 79.6875 2 75 2 70.3125 2 65.625 2 60.9375 2 56.25 2 51.5625 2 46.875 2 42.1875 2 37.5 2 32.8125 2 28.125 2 23.4375 2 18.75 2 14.0625 2 9.375 2 4.6875 0 4.6875 9.375 14.0625 18.75 23.4375 28.125 32.8125 37.5 42.1875 46.875 51.5625 56.25 60.9375 65.625 70.3125 75 79.6875 84.375 89.0625 93.75 98.4375 103.125 107.8125 112.5 117.1875 121.875 126.5625 131.25 135.9375

% change in maintenance period, j 2 100 2 95 2 90 2 85 2 80 2 75 2 70 2 65 2 60 2 55 2 50 2 45 2 40 2 35 2 30 2 25 2 20 2 15 2 10 25 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145

Cost, Cij 2 3.5 5 6.5 8 9.5 11 12.5 14 15.5 17 18.5 20 21.5 23 24.5 26 27.5 29 30.5 32 33.5 35 36.5 38 39.5 41 42.5 44 45.5 47 48.5 50 51.5 53 54.5 56 57.5 59 60.5 62 63.5 65 66.5 68 69.5 71 72.5 74 75.5

Maintenance period, j 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5 2.75 3 3.25 3.5 3.75 4 4.25 4.5 4.75 5 5.25 5.5 5.75 6 6.25 6.5 6.75 7 7.25 7.5 7.75 8 8.25 8.5 8.75 9 9.25 9.5 9.75 10 10.25 10.5 10.75 11 11.25 11.5 11.75 12 12.25 (continued )

Analysis of optimal Gantt charting 209

Table V. Cost, Cij and maintenance period, j

IJQRM 23,2

% change in cost, Cij 140.625 145.3125 150 154.6875 159.375 164.0625 168.75 173.4375 178.125 182.8125 187.5

% change in maintenance period, j 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190 195 200

Cost, Cij 77 78.5 80 81.5 83 84.5 86 87.5 89 90.5 92

Maintenance period, j 12.5 12.75 13 13.25 13.5 13.75 14 14.25 14.5 14.75 15

210

Table V.

Mean slope of

 9  dai 1 X dai n i1 dt dt 1 221 0 20:167 2 23 20:75 21 20:14 9 20:4057 20:0451: 9

Similarly: Mean slope of  9  ddi 1 X ddi n i1 dt dt 1 021 21:75 23 2 0:25 0 21 21 9 25:5 20:61: 9

From the values  but the  slope for the cost parameter obtained, both slopes are negative di i.e. dd i =dt was observed to be steep (since ddi =dt  . 0:5). In a further analysis, the percentage changes in cost (Cij), cost parameters a and d, maintenance period, j, and arrival period k (see Tables III-VI) are calculated by varying the value of interest by 5 per cent over a range of 2 100 per cent to 200 per cent. The summary of further analysis of the work is presented in Table VII. It should be noted that the initial starting solution used is based on the VAM that is demonstrated in the example in the table obtained from Charles-Owaba (2002). The data of Charles-Owaba was used to observe the differences in results when a new method different from what he proposed is used. The nal values obtained are as shown in the Tables III-VII. From our analysis two parts of the discussions are noted. The rst part consists of the results presented in Tables III-VI. The second part consists of the analytical results

% change in cost, Cij 56.25 53.4375 50.625 47.8125 45 42.1875 39.375 36.5625 33.75 30.9375 28.125 25.3125 22.5 19.6875 16.875 14.0625 11.25 8.4375 5.625 2.8125 0 2 2.8125 2 5.625 2 8.4375 2 11.25 2 14.0625 2 16.875 2 19.6875 2 22.5 2 25.3125 2 28.125 2 30.9375 2 33.75 2 36.5625 2 39.375 2 42.1875 2 45 2 47.8125 2 50.625 2 53.4375 2 56.25 2 59.0625 2 61.875 2 64.6875 2 67.5 2 70.3125 2 73.125 2 75.9375 2 78.75 2 81.5625

% change in arrival period, k 2 100 2 95 2 90 2 85 2 80 2 75 2 70 2 65 2 60 2 55 2 50 2 45 2 40 2 35 2 30 2 25 2 20 2 15 2 10 25 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145

Cost, Cij 50 49.1 48.2 47.3 46.4 45.5 44.6 43.7 42.8 41.9 41 40.1 39.2 38.3 37.4 36.5 35.6 34.7 33.8 32.9 32 31.1 30.2 29.3 28.4 27.5 26.6 25.7 24.8 23.9 23 22.1 21.2 20.3 19.4 18.5 17.6 16.7 15.8 14.9 14 13.1 12.2 11.3 10.4 9.5 8.6 7.7 6.8 5.9

Arrival period, k 0 0.15 0.3 0.45 0.6 0.75 0.9 1.05 1.2 1.35 1.5 1.65 1.8 1.95 2.1 2.25 2.4 2.55 2.7 2.85 3 3.15 3.3 3.45 3.6 3.75 3.9 4.05 4.2 4.35 4.5 4.65 4.8 4.95 5.1 5.25 5.4 5.55 5.7 5.85 6 6.15 6.3 6.45 6.6 6.75 6.9 7.05 7.2 7.35 (continued )

Analysis of optimal Gantt charting 211

Table VI. Cost, Cij and arrival period, k

IJQRM 23,2

% change in cost, Cij 2 84.375 2 87.1875 2 90 2 92.8125 2 95.625 2 98.4375 2 101.25 2 104.0625 2 106.875 2 109.6875 2 112.5

% change in arrival period, k 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190 195 200

Cost, Cij 5 4.1 3.2 2.3 1.4 0.5 2 0.4 2 1.3 2 2.2 2 3.1 24

Arrival period, k 7.5 7.65 7.8 7.95 8.1 8.25 8.4 8.55 8.7 8.85 9

212

Table VI.

Slope C ij =a C ij =d C ij =j C ij =k

Gradient 1 2 6 26

% change in gradient 0.625 0.375 0.9375 2 0.5625

Modulus of gradient 1 2 6 6

Modulus of % change in gradient 0.625 0.375 0.9375 2 0.5625

Table VII. Summary of results

Figure 2. Variation of Cij when j 5:5, k 5:5

obtained for slope calculation using the gradient formula. While the rst part of the analysis is for the equation:         ! T d 2 ki 2 ki a 2 ki : C T ; M ; Y mz T a d 2 2 The second part is for the simplied equation: C ij ai di j 2 k.

Analysis of optimal Gantt charting 213

Figure 3. Variation of Cij when j 5:0, k 10:0

Figure 4. Variation of Cij when j 10:0, k 5:0

From Table III The lowest cost of Cij tends to be 12 while its lowest percentage change in cost of Cij appears to be 2 625 going down the table at where the cost of Cij appears to be 32. Its percentage change in cost becomes 0. Considering the cost of parameter a from the same table. Its value appears to be 20 when its percentage change in cost of parameter a is 0. The lowest value for cost of parameter a is 0 while its percentage change in cost at this point appears to be 2 100. Now going down the table to the highest cost of Cij, it appears to be 72 while its percentage change in cost of Cij for this highest value is

IJQRM 23,2

214

Figure 5. Variation of Cij when j 0:5, k 8:5

Figure 6. Variation of Cij when ai 2:5; k 3:0

125. Looking at parameter a at its highest value, it tends to be (cost) 60, while its percentage change in cost for this value is 200. So it can be seen that the percentage change in cost for both Cij and parameters a tends to go from negative to positive as we go down the table. From Table IV The lowest cost of Cij can be seen to be 20 while its percentage change in cost for this value is 2 375 as we go down the table the percentage change in cost Cij moves to 0

Analysis of optimal Gantt charting 215

Figure 7. Variation of Cij when ai 3:5; k 3:0

Figure 8. Variation of Cij when ai 4:5, k 3:0

when the cost is 32. Going further down the table the cost of Cij rises to 56 which appears to be its highest value, here its percentage change in cost is now seen to be 75. Considering parameter d from this same table its percentage change in cost for parameter d is 2 100 for its lowest cost value, which is, 0. Moving down the table, where the percentage change in cost moves to 0, its cost now rises to 6. As we go further down the table to see the highest value the percentage change in cost of parameter d is now 200, when its cost appears to be 18 for its highest value.

IJQRM 23,2

216

Figure 9. Variation of Cij when ai 5:5; k 3:0

Figure 10. Variation of Cij when ai 6:5; k 3:0

From Table V Comparing the cost Cij to the maintenance period j. Looking at Cij from this table, it can be seen that its cost is 2 for the lowest value, here its percentage change in cost is 2 93.75, going down the table where the percentage change in cost of Cij appears to be 0, the cost now rises to the value of 32. As we go further down the table the highest cost for Cij is 92 when its percentage change in cost is 187.5.

Analysis of optimal Gantt charting 217

Figure 11. Variation of Cij when ai 7:5; k 3:0

Figure 12. Variation of Cij when ai 8:5; k 3:0

Considering the maintenance period j, it is 0 while its percentage change in maintenance period for this value is 100. As we look down the table its percentage change in maintenance period j is now 0 where its maintenance period for this value is seen to be 5 which shows an increment as we go down the table, looking at the highest value of the maintenance period j it is seen to be 15 which means its increased by a value of 10 for the percentage change in maintenance period to now be 200 for its highest value.

IJQRM 23,2

218

Figure 13. Variation of Cij when ai 9:5; k 3:0

Figure 14. Variation of Cij when ai 5:5, k 1:0

From Table VI Comparing the cost Cij to the arrival period k. Looking at the cost Cij its value here is seen to be 50 while its percentage change in cost Cij for this value is 56.25 which is seen to be a positive value. Going down the table where the percentage change in cost in Cij is 0 its cost appears to be 32 going down the table the cost Cij is now 2 4 for the nal value while its percentage change in cost is 2 112.5 which means that the values are decreasing we go down the table. Looking at the arrival period k its lowest value is zero up the table at which its percentage change in arrival period for this value is 2 100 going down the table the percentage change in arrival period k is zero, where its arrival period k for this value is 3. Going down the table the highest value of arrival period k, is seen to be 9 where its value is 200 which shows that the arrival period k increases down the table.

Analysis of optimal Gantt charting 219

Figure 15. Variation of Cij when ai 5:5, k 2:0

Figure 16. Variation of Cij when ai 5:5, k 3:0

In order to extend the degree of testing the model, we simulate data with the aid of Matlabq software and plot the results as graphs as shown in Figures 2-24. However, the expression used is of the form C ij ai d i j 2 k2 . This done so in order to test the model in the widest ranges possible. 4. Conclusions Wider applications of mathematical models are usually made if the sensitivity of the model parameters is known, this would help in advancing the frontier of knowledge in the scientic discipline concerned. It would also bring much practicality into the model application instead of paper work with little signicance to practice. In this paper, an analysis of the sensitivity of model parameters of a maintenance scheduling model is

IJQRM 23,2

220

Figure 17. Variation of Cij when ai 5:5, k 4:0

Figure 18. Variation of Cij when ai 5:5, k 5:0

presented. The work is motivated by the importance of simulating the simultaneous scheduling of maintenance and operation in a resource constrained environment. This has linkages with quality problems and maintenance performance as a whole. Second, although the maintenance engineering community is exposed to various optimal models in the resource constrained-based operational and maintenance arena, the models do lack sensitivity analysis that the current work has investigated. We have addressed the issue of sensitivity analysis by explaining some vital points, which include the establishment of the relationship among the parameters of the model. From data, we employed graphical tools to demonstrate the sensitivity. Finally, we discuss on the basis of the scale of maintenance cost and size in order to demonstrate the practical application of the approach stated in this work.

Analysis of optimal Gantt charting 221

Figure 19. Variation of Cij when ai 5:5, k 6:0

Figure 20. Variation of Cij when ai 8:5, j 0:5

The initial basic solution approach applied in this work is the Vogels approximation method in transportation modelling. Based on this, the principle of Gantt charting was used to dene the problem. The conclusions drawn from the extensive testing of the model are as follows: . parameter a is more sensitive than parameter d; . parameter j is more sensitive than parameters a and d, parameter k is less sensitive to parameter j and a but more sensitive than parameter d.

IJQRM 23,2

222

Figure 21. Variation of Cij when ai 8:5, j 3:5

Figure 22. Variation of Cij when ai 8:5, j 8:5

The results obtained here are for the model of the form:         ! T d 2 ki 2 ki a 2 ki : C T ; M ; Y mz T a d 2 2 However, for the simplied equation of the form C ij ai di j 2 k.

Analysis of optimal Gantt charting 223

Figure 23. Variation of Cij when ai 5:5, j 8:5

Figure 24. Variation of Cij when ai 1:0, j 8:5

The following conclusions are valued j is the most sensitive out of a, d, j and k. This is followed by a. The next sensitive item is d while the least sensitive item is k. There are a number of fertile research areas on the sensitivity analysis of the model presented. If the original model could be fuzzied, comparative analysis could be made between the result obtained in this work and the expected results from the fuzzied exercise. The same line of experimentation could be conducted on sensitivity analysis when other soft computing tools are applied to the original model. Some interesting results may be observed when soft computing tools such as genetic algorithm, articial neural-network and neuro-fuzzy are applied to the original model. Further extension of the frontier of knowledge on sensitivity analysis with respect to the maintenance

IJQRM 23,2

224

scheduling modelling could be made if researchers engaged the collaborative efforts of our statistics trained experts. Apart from the goodness of t which is a widely used concept in sensitivity test analysis, some more advanced tools could be adopted to the benet of maintenance engineering community. It is possible to focus some attention on the important area of model calibration. This, the present model could be calibrated under a wide range of circumstances and assumptions. This would add great value to the pool of knowledge in the sensitivity analysis area of maintenance scheduling model.
References Adzakpa, K.P., Adjallah, K.H. and Yalaoui, F. (2004), On-line maintenance job scheduling and assignment to resources in distributed systems by heuristic-based optimization, Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 131-40. Alfares, H.K. (1999), Aircraft maintenance workforce scheduling: a case study, Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 78-88. Anily, S., Glass, C.A. and Hassin, R. (1998), The scheduling of maintenance service, Discrete Applied Mathematics, Vol. 82, pp. 27-42. Anily, S., Glass, C.A. and Hassin, R. (1999), Scheduling of maintenance services to three machines, Annals of Operations Research, Vol. 86, pp. 375-91. Atkinson, E., Elango, K., Mohan, S., Fadda, G. and Cinus, S. (2003), A rational approach to scheduling main-system maintenance, Irrigation and Drainage Systems, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 239-61. Bar-Noy, A., Bhatia, R., Naor, J. and Schieber, B. (1998), Minimizing service and operation costs of periodic scheduling, paper presented at SODA98, Holiday Inn Golden Gateway Hotel, San Francisco, CA, 25-27 January. Billinton, R. and Pan, J. (1998), Optimal maintenance scheduling in a two identical component parallel redundant systems, Journal of Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Vol. 59 No. 3, pp. 309-16. Burke, E.K. and Smith, A.J. (1999a), A multi-stage approach for the thermal generator maintenance scheduling problem, Proceedings of the Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CE99), Washington DC, USA, Vol. 2, IEEE Press, Chicago, IL, pp. 1085-92. Burke, E.K. and Smith, A.J. (1999b), A memetic algorithm to schedule grid maintenance, Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Intelligence for Modelling Control and Automation: Evolutionary Computation and Fuzzy Logic for Intelligent Control, Knowledge Acquisition and Information Retrieval, Vienna, IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp. 122-7. Burke, E.K., Clark, J.A. and Smith, A.J. (1998), Four methods for maintenance scheduling, Proceedings of the International Conference on Articial Neural Networks and Genetic Algorithms, Springer, New York, NY, pp. 264-9. Charest, M. and Ferland, J.A. (1993), Preventative maintenance scheduling of power generation units, Annals of Operational Research, Vol. 41, pp. 185-206. Charles-Owaba, O.E. (2002), Gantt charting multiple machines preventive maintenance activities, Nigerian Journal of Educational Research and Development, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 60-7. Chattopadhyay, D., Bhattacharya, K. and Pariksh, J. (1995), A system approach to least-cost maintenance scheduling for an interconnected power system, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 2000-7.

Chen, L.N. and Toyoda, J. (1990), Maintenance scheduling based on two level hierarchical structure to equalize incremental risk, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 1510-6. Christiaanse, W.R. (1973), A program for calculating optimal maintenance schedules recognising constraints, 1973 PICA Conference Proceedings, 1973, pp. 230-9. Christiannse, W.R. and Palmer, A.H. (1991), A technique for automatic scheduling of the maintenance of generating facilities, IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, PAS-91, No. 1, pp. 319-27. Contaxis, G.C., Kavatza, S.D. and Vournas, C.D. (1989), An interactive package for risk evaluation and maintenance scheduling, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 389-95. Coudert, T., Grabot, B. and Archimede, B. (2000), Integration of maintenance constraints in scheduling: fuzzy modelling and multi-agent approach, 4th IEEE/IFIP International Conference on Information Technology for Balanced Automation Systems in Production and Transportation (BASYS 2000), Berlin, Allemagne, in Camarinha-Matos, L.M., Afsarmanesh, H. and Erbe, H.H. (Eds), Advances in Networked Entreprises, Kluwer, New York, NY, pp. 297-304. Dahal, K.P. and McDonald, J.R. (1997), Generational and steady state genetic algorithms for generator maintenance scheduling problems, Proceedings of the International Conference on Articial Neural Networks and Genetic Algorithms, pp. 260-4. Dapazo, J.F. and Merrill, H.M. (1975), Optimal generator maintenance scheduling using integer programming, IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, PAS-94, No. 5, pp. 1537-45. Duffuaa, S.O. and Al-sultan, K.S. (1997), Mathematical programming approaches for the management of maintenance, planning and scheduling, Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 163-76. Egan, G.T., Dillon, T.S. and Morsztyn, K. (1976), An experimental method of determination of optimal maintenance schedules in power system using branch and bound techniques, IEEE Transactions on Man. and Cybernetics. SMC-6, No. 8, pp. 538-47. El-Sheikhi, F.A. and Billinton, R. (1984), Generating unit maintenance scheduling for single and two interconnected systems, IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, PAS-103, No. 5, pp. 1038-44. Enscore, E.E. and Burns, D.L. (1983), Dynamic scheduling of a preventive maintenance programme, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 357-68. Fwa, T.F., Cheu, R.L. and Muntasir, A. (1999), Scheduling of pavement maintenance to minimise trafc delays, Transportation Research Record 1650, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, pp. 28-35. Garver, L.L. (1972), Adjusting maintenance schedule to levelize risk, IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, PAS-91, No. 5, pp. 2057-63. Haghani, A. and Shafahi, Y. (2002), Bus maintenance systems and maintenance scheduling: Model formulation and solutions, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 453-8. Hall, R.W. (2000), Scheduling transit railcar maintenance and facility design, Transportation Research, No. 34A, pp. 67-84. Hariga, H. (1994), A deterministic maintenance-scheduling problem for a group of non-identical machines, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 14 No. 7, pp. 27-36.

Analysis of optimal Gantt charting 225

IJQRM 23,2

226

Higgins, A., Ferreira, L. and Lake, M. (1999), Scheduling rail track maintenance to minimise overall delays, in Ceder, A. (Ed.), Transportation and Trafc Theory, Pergamon, Kidington and Oxford, Ch. 10, pp. 779-96. Joshi, S. and Gupta, R. (1996), Scheduling of routine maintenance using production schedules and equipment failure history, Computer and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 11-20. Khan, F.I. and Hadara, M.M. (2003), Risk-based maintenance (RBM): a quantitative approach for maintenance/inspection scheduling and planning, Journal of Loss Prevention in Process Industries, Vol. 16, pp. 561-73. Khatib, H. (1979), Maintenance scheduling of generating facilities, IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, PAS-98, No. 5, pp. 1604-8. Kin, H., Hayashi, Y. and Nara, K. (1997), An algorithm for thermal unit maintenance scheduling through combined use of GA, SA and TS, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 12, pp. 329-35. Kobbacy, K.A.H., Fawzi, B.B., Percy, D.F. and Ascher, H.E. (1997), A full history proportional hazards model for preventive maintenance scheduling, Quality and Reliability Engineering, Vol. 13, pp. 187-98. Kurban, M. (1999), The maintenance schedule optimisation in an interconnected power system using the levelised risk method, IEEE Budapest Power Tech 99 Conference, Budapest, Hungary, No. 386, pp. 26-40. Lake, M. and Ferreira, L. (2001), Considering the risk of delays in scheduling railway track maintenance, Proceedings of the 7th International Heavy Haul Conference, International Heavy Haul Association Inc., Virginia Beach, VA, USA, pp. 367-72. Lake, M., Ferreira, L. and Murray, M. (2000), Minimising costs in scheduling railway track maintenance, in Allan, J., Hill, R.J., Brebbia, C.A., Scuitto, G. and Sone, S. (Eds), Computer in Railways VII, WIT Press, Southampton, Ch. 13, pp. 895-902. Lund, J.R. (1990), Scheduling maintenance dredging on a single reach with uncertainty, Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal, and Ocean Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 116 No. 2, pp. 211-321. Marwali, M. and Shahidehpour, M. (1998a), Coordination of short-term and long-term transmission maintenance scheduling in a deregulated system, IEEE Power Engineering Letters, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 46-8. Marwali, M. and Shahidehpour, M. (1998b), Integrated generation and transmission maintenance scheduling with network constraints, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 1063-8. Mosley, S.A., Teyner, T. and Uzsoy, R.M. (1998), Maintenance scheduling and stafng policies in a wafer fabrication facility, IEEE Transactions on Semiconductor Manufacturing, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 316-23. Nguyen, D.G. and Murthy, D.N.P. (1981), Optimal repair limit replacement policies with imperfect repair, J. Opl. Res. Soc., Vol. 32, pp. 409-16. Oke, S.A. (2004a), Maintenance scheduling: description, status, and future directions, South African Journal of Industrial Engineering, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 101-17. Oke, S.A. (2004b), A re-examination of the optimal Gantt charting model for maintenance scheduling, Proceedings of MIMAR 2004, the 5th IMA International Conference, 5-7 April 2004, Salford, United Kingdom, pp. 219-24. Percy, D., Kobbacy, K. and Ascher, H.T. (1998), Using proportional-intensities models to schedule preventive maintenance intervals, IMA Journal of Mathematical Applied in Business and Industry, Vol. 9, pp. 289-302.

Percy, D.F., Kobbacy, K.A.H. and Fawzi, B.B. (1997), Setting preventive maintenance schedules when data are sparse, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 51, pp. 223-34. Ram, B. and Olumolade, M. (1987), Preventive maintenance scheduling in the presence of a production plan, Production and Inventory Management, Vol. 8, pp. 81-9. Samanayake, B.R. and Yu, J. (1995), A balanced maintenance schedule for a failure-prone system, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 12 No. 9, pp. 183-91. Sarker, B.R. and Yu, J. (1995), A balanced maintenance schedule for a failure-prone system, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 12 No. 9, pp. 183-91. Satoh, T. and Nara, K. (1991), Maintenance scheduling by using the simulated annealing method, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 6, pp. 850-7. Silver, E.A. and Murphy, G.F. (1994), Cost analysis and extension of a simple maintenance scheduling heuristic, NRL (US), Vol. 41 No. 7, pp. 945-58. Sriskandarajah, C., Jardine, A.K.S. and Chan, C.K. (1998), Maintenance scheduling of rolling stocks using a genetic algorithm, Journal of Operational Research Society (UK), Vol. 49, pp. 1130-45. Stremel, J.P. (1981), Maintenance scheduling for generation system planning, IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, PAS-100, No. 3, pp. 4010-9. Stremel, J.P. and Jenkins, R.T. (1981), Maintenance scheduling under uncertainty, IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, PAS-100, No. 2, pp. 460-5. Walker, L., Bryan, U. and Turner, K. (2001), Scheduling preventive maintenance of transmission circuits, paper presented at the 4th IMA Conference on Modelling in Industrial Maintenance and Reliability Decision Support in the New Millennium, April. Wang, Y., Cheu, R.L. and Fwa, T.F. (2002), Highway maintenance scheduling using genetic algorithm with microscopic trafc simulation, Proceedings of the 81st Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board (on CD-ROM). Yamayee, Z.A. (1982), Maintenance scheduling: description, literature survey, and interface with overall operation scheduling, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, PAS-101, No. 8, pp. 2770-9. Yamayee, Z.A., Sidenblad, K. and Yoshimura, M. (1998), A computationally efcient optimal maintenance scheduling method, IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. 102 No. 2, pp. 330-8. Yellen, J., Al-Khamis, J., Vemuri, S. and Lemonidis, L. (1992), Unit maintenance scheduling with fuel constraints, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 7, pp. 726-33. Zurn, H.H. and Quintana, V.H. (1975), Generator maintenance scheduling via successive approximations dynamic programming, IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. 94 No. 2, pp. 665-71. Zurn, H.H. and Quintana, V.H. (1977), Several objective criteria for optimal generator preventive maintenance scheduling, IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, PAS-96, No. 3, pp. 884-922. Further reading Marwali, M.K.C. and Shahidehpour, S.M. (1999), A probabilistic approach to generation maintenance scheduler with network constraints, International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems, Vol. 21 No. 8, pp. 533-45.

Analysis of optimal Gantt charting 227

IJQRM 23,2

Appendix

228

Figure A1. Transportation tableau for the Vogels Approximation Method (VAM)

Analysis of optimal Gantt charting 229

Figure A2. The preventive maintenance Gantt chart for VAM

Corresponding author S.A. Oke can be contacted at: sa_oke@yahoo.com

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints