IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i6p2488-d1358636.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Framework for Strategic Selection of Maintenance Contractors

Author

Listed:
  • Muhammad Umer Zubair

    (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, College of Engineering, King Faisal University (KFU), P.O. Box 380, Al-Hofuf 31982, Saudi Arabia)

  • Osama Farid

    (NUST Institute of Civil Engineering (NICE), School of Civil and Environmental Engineering (SCEE), National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Sector H-12, Islamabad 44000, Pakistan)

  • Muhammad Usman Hassan

    (NUST Institute of Civil Engineering (NICE), School of Civil and Environmental Engineering (SCEE), National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Sector H-12, Islamabad 44000, Pakistan)

  • Taha Aziz

    (NUST Institute of Civil Engineering (NICE), School of Civil and Environmental Engineering (SCEE), National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Sector H-12, Islamabad 44000, Pakistan)

  • Sameer Ud-Din

    (NUST Institute of Civil Engineering (NICE), School of Civil and Environmental Engineering (SCEE), National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Sector H-12, Islamabad 44000, Pakistan)

Abstract

Selecting the right maintenance contractor is crucial for efficient operation and project success. Traditionally, this selection has been cost-driven, but the ever-growing complexity of projects has led to a shift towards best-value selection. The best value selection criteria evaluate the contractors based on factors like experience and past performance, along with the proposed cost. However, this approach lacks substantiated knowledge of these factors and often includes factors that cannot be validated at the time of procurement. This paper proposes a framework that applies the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) to the maintenance contractor selection process. A detailed literature review was carried out to identify factors involved in maintenance selection. Data were collected from experts through a questionnaire developed based on the identified factors, facilitating AHP implementation. Substantiation strategies were identified using expert judgments. Our findings reveal that past performance criteria hold the maximum weight in the selection process. The proposed framework offers a more comprehensive approach for selecting maintenance contractors, ensuring both value and efficiency.

Suggested Citation

  • Muhammad Umer Zubair & Osama Farid & Muhammad Usman Hassan & Taha Aziz & Sameer Ud-Din, 2024. "Framework for Strategic Selection of Maintenance Contractors," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(6), pages 1-20, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:6:p:2488-:d:1358636
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/6/2488/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/6/2488/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Karapetrovic, Stanislav & Rosenbloom, E. S., 1999. "A quality control approach to consistency paradoxes in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 119(3), pages 704-718, December.
    2. Senay Oguztimur, 2011. "Why Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process Approach For Transport Problems?," ERSA conference papers ersa11p438, European Regional Science Association.
    3. Eddie W. L. Cheng & Heng Li, 2004. "Contractor selection using the analytic network process," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(10), pages 1021-1032, December.
    4. Forman, Ernest & Peniwati, Kirti, 1998. "Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 165-169, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chetan A. Jhaveri & Jitendra M. Nenavani, 2020. "Evaluation of eTail Services Quality: AHP Approach," Vision, , vol. 24(3), pages 310-319, September.
    2. Haddad, Brahim & Liazid, Abdelkrim & Ferreira, Paula, 2017. "A multi-criteria approach to rank renewables for the Algerian electricity system," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 462-472.
    3. Andreas Schiessl & Richard Müller & Rebekka Volk & Konrad Zimmer & Patrick Breun & Frank Schultmann, 2020. "Integrating site-specific environmental impact assessment in supplier selection: exemplary application to steel procurement," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 90(9), pages 1409-1457, November.
    4. Pérez-Mesa, Juan Carlos & Galdeano-Gómez, Emilio & Salinas Andújar, Jose A., 2012. "Logistics network and externalities for short sea transport: An analysis of horticultural exports from southeast Spain," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 188-198.
    5. J González-Pachón & C Romero, 2006. "An analytical framework for aggregating multiattribute utility functions," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(10), pages 1241-1247, October.
    6. Marlow, David R. & Beale, David J. & Mashford, John S., 2012. "Risk-based prioritization and its application to inspection of valves in the water sector," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 67-74.
    7. Jacinto González-Pachón & Carlos Romero, 2007. "Inferring consensus weights from pairwise comparison matrices without suitable properties," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 154(1), pages 123-132, October.
    8. Targetti, Stefano & Schaller, Lena L. & Kantelhardt, Jochen, 2021. "A fuzzy cognitive mapping approach for the assessment of public-goods governance in agricultural landscapes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    9. Paredes-Frigolett, Harold & Pyka, Andreas & Leoneti, Alexandre Bevilacqua, 2021. "On the performance and strategy of innovation systems: A multicriteria group decision analysis approach," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    10. Valdecy Pereira & Helder Costa, 2015. "Nonlinear programming applied to the reduction of inconsistency in the AHP method," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 229(1), pages 635-655, June.
    11. Cheng-Hua Yang & Huei-Ju Chen & Li-Chu Lin & Alastair M. Morrison, 2020. "The Analysis of Critical Success Factors for In-Town Check-In in Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-20, December.
    12. Gerda Ana Melnik-Leroy & Gintautas Dzemyda, 2021. "How to Influence the Results of MCDM?—Evidence of the Impact of Cognitive Biases," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-25, January.
    13. Ioanna Andreoulaki & Aikaterini Papapostolou & Vangelis Marinakis, 2024. "Evaluating the Barriers to Blockchain Adoption in the Energy Sector: A Multicriteria Approach Using the Analytical Hierarchy Process for Group Decision Making," Energies, MDPI, vol. 17(6), pages 1-27, March.
    14. Hsu-Shih Shih, 2016. "A Mixed-Data Evaluation in Group TOPSIS with Differentiated Decision Power," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 537-565, May.
    15. Syed Hammad Mian & Bashir Salah & Wadea Ameen & Khaja Moiduddin & Hisham Alkhalefah, 2020. "Adapting Universities for Sustainability Education in Industry 4.0: Channel of Challenges and Opportunities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-33, July.
    16. Fatima Lambarraa-Lehnhardt & Rico Ihle & Hajar Elyoubi, 2021. "How Successful Is Origin Labeling in a Developing Country Context? Moroccan Consumers’ Preferences toward Local Products," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-17, July.
    17. Zhu, Bin & Xu, Zeshui, 2014. "Analytic hierarchy process-hesitant group decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(3), pages 794-801.
    18. Aull-Hyde, Rhonda & Erdogan, Sevgi & Duke, Joshua M., 2006. "An experiment on the consistency of aggregated comparison matrices in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 171(1), pages 290-295, May.
    19. Juan Aguarón & María Teresa Escobar & José María Moreno-Jiménez & Alberto Turón, 2019. "AHP-Group Decision Making Based on Consistency," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-15, March.
    20. O. Flores Baquero & J. Gallego-Ayala & R. Giné-Garriga & A. Jiménez-Fernández. Palencia & A. Pérez-Foguet, 2017. "The Influence of the Human Rights to Water and Sanitation Normative Content in Measuring the Level of Service," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 133(2), pages 763-786, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:6:p:2488-:d:1358636. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.