Quarterly Publication

Document Type : Original Article


1 Assistant Professor, Energy Economics and Management Department, Petroleum Faculty of Tehran , Petroleum University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

2 PhD Candidate in Operation and Production Management, Faculty of Management & Accounting, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

3 M.A. Student in Project Management, Energy Economics and Management Department, Petroleum Faculty of Tehran , Petroleum University of Technology, Tehran, Iran


Companies need to exactly manage their assets to balance performance, risk, and cost. The ability of equipment to provide a certain level of performance is influenced by its design, utilization, deterioration, and life. On the other hand, in order to obtain the desired level of performance and reduce risk, proper planning of maintenance activities during the period must be done. To manage this issue, organizations must develop a suitable method for their assets from the acquisition stage to the disposal to obtain the required processes and, ultimately, to earn the desired profit. In this study, petroleum pipelines have been considered as a case study, and life cycle cost (LCC), risk, and key performance indicators (KPI) have been identified as the criteria for decision making. KPI is itself composed of three sub criteria, including reliability, availability, and maintainability. They are weighted by using the opinions of eight expert and DANP method. The final weights of LCC, risk, and KPI (reliability, availability, and maintainability) are 0.269, 0.301, and 0.429 respectively. Considering different strategies in each phase of the asset life cycle, different scenarios are described for the asset life cycle as follows: 1) RCM-replacement, 2) RCM-overhaul, 3) CBM-replacement, 4) CBM-overhaul, 5) TPM-replacement, and 6) TPM-overhaul. Finally, based on the gained experts’ viewpoint from questionnaire and MOORA technique to rank the scenarios, the desired scenario, namely Buy-TPM-Replacement, is selected. Due to the use of experts’ opinions, these results will vary with the change of people, and due to the lack of relevant data, it is not possible to avoid this issue.


Main Subjects

Aditya, P. (2012). Asset performance assessment in asset management. The state of the art in Europe from a life cycle perspective, by Paulien Herder, Ype Winia Telli van der Lei, pp. 101–113.

Bashiri, M., Badri, H., Hejazi, T. (2011). Selecting optimum maintenance strategy by fuzzy interactive linear assignment method. Applied Mathematical Modeling, 35, 152–164.

Brauers, W. K., Zavadskas, E. (2012). Robustness of MULTIMOORA: A method for multi-objective optimization. Informatica, 23(1), 1–25.

Campbell, J.D, Jardin, A. K. S, McGlynn, J. (2011). Asset management excellence: optimizing equipment life-cycle decisions, Second Edition, Taylor & Francis, New York.

Campos, J., Sharm, P., Gabiria, U. G., Jantunen, E., Baglee, D. (2017). A big data analytical architecture for the Asset Management. Procedia CIRP 64, 369 – 374.

Chiu, W. Y., Tzeng, G. H., & Li, H. L. (2013). A new hybrid MCDM model combining DANP with VIKOR to improve e-store business. Knowledge-Based Systems, 37, 48–61.

Hajshirmahammadi, A. (2004). Industrial Maintenance Planning & Control. Ghazal. Isfahan.

ISO 14224. (2016). Petroleum, petrochemical and natural gas industries: collection and exchange of reliability and maintenance data for equipment.

ISO 55000, (2014). Asset management- overview, principles and terminology. International Standard, Switzerland.

Jafari-Moghadam, S., Zali, M., Sanaeepour, H. (2017). Tourism entrepreneurship policy: a hybrid MCDM model combining DEMATEL and ANP (DANP). Decision Science Letters, 6(3), 233–250.

Jooste, W. (2004). A performance management model for physical asset management. South African Journal of Industrial Engineering, 15(2), 45–66.

Karande, P., Chakraborty, S. (2012). Application of multi-objective optimization on the basis of ratio analysis (MOORA) method for materials selection. Materials & Design, 37, 317–324.

Maletič, D., Maletič, M., Al-Najjar, B., Gotzamani, K., Gianni, M., Kalinowski, T. B., Gomiscek, B. (2017). Contingency factors influencing implementation of physical asset management practices. Organizacija, 50(1), March.

Mkhatshwa, C. (2011). The decision to buy or lease equipment from an engineering economics perspective. BSc Thesis, University of Pretoria, MA, October.

Premanathan, T., Rajini, D., Weerainghe, A. (2018). Risks associated with physical asset management: a literature review. The 7th World Construction Symposium, July, Colombo.

Sayyah, A. (2017). Developing a mathematical model for determination of asset management strategy based on maintenance and procurement factors. Journal of Modeling in Engineering, 15(51), 1–13.

Smit S. J., Vlok, P.J. (2014). The possible influence of risk management, forecasting, and personnel training in physical asset management. South African Journal of Industrial Engineering, 25(2), 96–104.

Sokri, A. (2014). Life cycle costing of military equipment. International conference of control, dynamic systems, and robotics, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, May, No.45, 1–9.

Streimikiene, D., Balezentis, T. (2013). Multi-objective ranking of climate change mitigation policies and measures in Lithuania. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 18, 144–153.

Waghmode, L. Y., Sahasrabudhe, A. D. (2012). Modelling maintenance and repair costs using stochastic point processes for life cycle costing of repairable systems. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 25(4–5), 353–367.

Woodward, D. G. (1997). Life cycle costing- theory, information acquisition and application. International journal of project management, 15(6), 335–344.