See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333857187
Value adding and non-value adding activities in turnaround maintenance
process: classification, validation, and benefits
Article in Production Planning and Control · June 2019
DOI: 10.1080/09537287.2019.1629038
CITATIONS
READS
24
2,157
4 authors, including:
Xiangyu Wang
Curtin University
290 PUBLICATIONS 8,680 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Emotion recognition system View project
Affective Computing View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Xiangyu Wang on 05 October 2021.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
Production Planning & Control
The Management of Operations
ISSN: 0953-7287 (Print) 1366-5871 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tppc20
Value adding and non-value adding activities in
turnaround maintenance process: classification,
validation, and benefits
Wenchi Shou, Jun Wang, Peng Wu & Xiangyu Wang
To cite this article: Wenchi Shou, Jun Wang, Peng Wu & Xiangyu Wang (2020) Value adding
and non-value adding activities in turnaround maintenance process: classification, validation, and
benefits, Production Planning & Control, 31:1, 60-77, DOI: 10.1080/09537287.2019.1629038
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2019.1629038
Published online: 18 Jun 2019.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 938
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 8 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tppc20
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL
2020, VOL. 31, NO. 1, 60–77
https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2019.1629038
Value adding and non-value adding activities in turnaround maintenance
process: classification, validation, and benefits
Wenchi Shoua, Jun Wangb, Peng Wua and Xiangyu Wanga,c
a
School of Design and the Built Environment, Curtin University, Bentley, WA, Australia; bSchool of Architecture and Built Environment,
Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia; cDepartment of Housing and ID, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, South Korea
ABSTRACT
ARTICLE HISTORY
The increasing popularity of lean thinking has made the analysis of value-adding (VA) and non-value
adding (NVA) a popular activity to eliminate waste and improve productivity. Despite the great success
of the Taiichi Ohno’s waste taxonomy and its adaptation and diffusion into the maintenance sector, a
systematic classification of VA and NVA remains as a significant challenge for lean practitioners. The
aim of this research is to develop a system to classify VA and NVA activities for lean applications in
turnaround maintenance (TAM) projects. First, a comprehensive literature review was conducted on
existing methods of defining and classifying value and waste. As a result of this review, an initial system to classify VA and NVA in TAM was proposed, which was then refined in three focus group studies conducted with a group of TAM participants. The improved classification system was evaluated by
applying value stream mapping (VSM) in terms of the ontology effectiveness and efficiency using a
sample case. The classification system contributes to an accurate classification of value, and waste and
the relevant root causes in the TAM processes. The classification system provides an insight on a consolidated understanding and classification of VA and NVA in TAM projects.
Received 4 July 2018
Accepted 19 April 2019
1. Introduction
The advantages of the advanced lean management theory
and techniques have attracted the researchers’ attention in
the turnaround maintenance (TAM) domain. TAM, as a periodic comprehensive programme which contributes significantly to the long-term stability and continuous production
availability of the oil and gas plants, is one of the most
important maintenance strategies to minimise the risk of
production losses in process industry (Duffuaa and Ben Daya
2004; Lenahan 1999). Lean thinking has gained attention to
improve the efficiency of the TAM process from planning
through to completion (Smith and Hawkins 2004). In addition, Melton (2005) also argued that through the implementation of lean thinking, which concentrates on value
recognition and waste elimination, the clients and contractors are able to attain the goal of zero waste (Melton 2005).
Striving towards this goal will also bring a number of other
tangible benefits, which may include lead time reduction
and increased value of the operation processes, leading to
higher satisfaction level of both clients and contractors
(Tyagi et al. 2015). According to Shou et al. (2015), value
stream mapping (VSM) can be implemented to measure process efficiency in TAM projects.
However, there are limited studies related to the use of
lean in TAM due to the significant differences between TAM
execution and manufacturing production. Manufacturing
KEYWORDS
Value adding; non-value
adding; classification; value
stream mapping;
turnaround maintenance
processes focus on tangible physic product transformation
and they are structured and easily to be classified and measured (Rother and Shook 2003). Such as functionality to satisfy
the final users which is related to whether an activity contributes to the form, fit or function of the production flow, if
so, the activity is considered as value adding (VA), and if not,
the activity is categorized as waste that has either necessary
or unnecessary nature (NVA) (McManus 2005). The continuous and transparent production processes make it an easy
job to calculate the production performance.
The process industries are those industries where the primary production processes are either continuous or occur on
a batch of materials that is indistinguishable (Engineers
2018). Processes usually require rigid process control and
high capital investment. Typical examples of process industries include chemical industry, pharmaceutical manufacturing, and petrochemical industry, etc. The big difference
between the process industries and the common discrete
manufacturing is in the continuity of operation. The continuity feature makes it so expensive to shut down a process
which can create a big challenge from the logistical standpoint (Abdulmalek and Rajgopal 2007). Ashayeri, Teelen, and
Selenj (1996) listed the major differences between the process industries and the discrete manufacturing industry in
relation to the market, production process, the quality of the
products and processes, and the planning and control function (as shown in Table 3). The comparison suggested a
CONTACT Jun Wang
jun.wangsemantic@gmail.com
School of Architecture and Built Environment, Deakin University, Geelong Waterfront Campus, Locked
Bag 20001, Geelong, VIC 3220, Australia
*Current affiliation: School of Computing, Engineering and Mathematics, Western Sydney University, Parramatta, NSW, Australia.
ß 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL
Table 1. The differences between process industries and discrete manufacturing industries.
Relationship with the market
The production process
Routeings
Lay-out
Flexibility
Production equipment
Labour intensity
Capital intensity
Changeover times
Work in process
Volumes
Planning & control
Production
Long term planning
Short term planning
Starting point planning
Material flow
Yield variability
’Explosion’ via
By and co-products
Lot tracine
Process industries
Discrete industries
Fixed
By product
Low
Specialized
Low
High
High
Low
High
Variable
By function
High
Universal
High
Low
Low
High
Low
To stock
Capacity
Utilization capacity
Availability capacity
Divergent þ convergent
Sometimes high
Recipes
Sometimes
Mostly necessary
To order
Product design
Utilization personnel
Availability material
Convergent
Mostly low
Bill of material
Not
Mostly not necessary
61
According to McCarthy and Menicou (2002), classification
can improve communication efficiency, assist managers to
focus attention on important activities and identify the waste
efficiently in the operation process. Therefore, to effectively
apply the VSM and lean production theory to identify waste
and improve value adding ratio in TAM projects, proper classification schemes should be proposed.
The aim of this research is therefore to (1) review the
current definition and classification of VA and NVA in the
manufacturing, construction and maintenance sectors; (2)
develop a classification system of VA and NVA activities in
TAM projects; (3) validate the classification system ontology
effectiveness; and (4) evaluate efficiency by conducting
VSM analysis of a sample case. The developed and verified
VA and NVA classification system serves as guidelines for
effective lean application in TAM projects in oil and
gas sector.
Table adopted from Ashayeri, Teelen, and Selenj (1996).
2. Review of VA and NVA analysis
much more complicated maintenance functions in process
industries. Furthermore, Abdulmalek and Rajgopal (2007)
have analyzed the features of process industries. It was suggested that the application of lean production in process
industries is possible but the features such as capacity
focused, high capital intensity, high volumes and low flexibility make it impossible to borrow the lean concept and to be
applied directly.
Turnaround maintenance is a crucial asset management in
petrochemical industry. It is high cost and duration-driven
project, the execution of turnaround is a complex system in
which massive maintenance activities and resources interact
in ways so that the action of any activity or resource can
impact the execution (Bertolini et al. 2009). Project management for maintenance focuses on improving stability regarding the efficiency of workflow planning and control (Dellagi,
Chelbi, and Trabelsi 2017). The definition of VA activities in
TAM projects should not be limited to the analysis of the
activities which contribute to the productivity of the plant
but should also include activities which can affect the quality
of the production process (Gouiaa-Mtibaa et al. 2018).
Moreover, due to the significant size of work to be completed in a short period of time, a general VA and NVA definition in turnaround projects faces a series of difficulties.
There are a wide variety of activities that can involve tens of
participants during the process, which can lead to a high
level of complexity of on-site activities. In addition, there is a
high level of complexity of the management structure,
involving multi-level interactions among different stakeholders. Massive resources will be required, leading to additional
workload to manage resource availability. In maintenance,
there is a strong emphasis on safety consideration, which
brings additional considerations about on-site operations.
The complexity of the activities involved in TAM projects
shows that the identification and classification of VA and
NVA by adopting the general VA and NVA definition may
not be applicable to TAM projects.
In this section, the current definition and classification of
VA and NVA activities in the manufacturing, construction
and maintenance industry were reviewed. Construction project is a typical example of a project-based production and
management system. The review of relevant studies in the
construction industry can offer useful insights about the
classification of VA and VA in the project management area.
2.1. The definition and classification of VA and NVA in
the manufacturing industry
Lean thinking originated from the automobile industry and
developed from Taiichi Ohno’s notion of ‘reduce cost by
eliminating waste’ (Holweg 2007). It is observed that the definitions of value and waste have developed over time and
the demarcation and similarities of the definition have been
captured. According to Ohno (1988) and Shingo and Dillon
(1989), lean research at initial defined value by system input
and output, waste is any loss of cost during inefficient transformation (commonly called muda – the Japanese term, in
€rer, Tomasevic, and
the sense of wasted effort or time) (Thu
Stevenson 2016). The research focused on efficiency
improvement in the production process by quantifying the
ratio between valuable output and consumed valuable input
€rer, Tomasevic, and Stevenson 2016). Wastes
resources (Thu
were divided into seven categories: over-production, defects,
inventory, over-processing, transportation, waiting, and
unnecessary motion. Lean was a systematic recognition and
expulsion of the waste contributing to the poor operation efficiency.
Since the publication of Womack and Jones (1996), the
view of value has changed from waste and cost reduction to
enhance customers’ value by adding product or service fea€rer, Tomasevic,
tures and/or removing wasteful activities (Thu
and Stevenson 2016; Hines, Holweg, and Rich 2004).
Womack and Jones (1996) focused on developing a guideline
of waste elimination and value improvement by classifying
62
W. SHOU ET AL.
Table 2. The definition of the seven categories of waste.
The type of waste
Shingo and Dillon (1989) and Ohno (1988)
Overproduction
Process transformation without need, produce too much
Defects
Inventory
Rework and defective products which lead to quality loss
Work-in-process and finished goods inventory
Over-processing
Unnecesary processing in production process
Transportation
Materials, work-in-process, or finished goods move with no
value added.
Waiting
Delay in the actions that accomplish process transformation
Unnecessary motion Any motion which does not transform the product
adding value
Adopted from Th€urer, Tomasevic, and Stevenson (2016).
and quantifying the activities from customers’ perspective.
Along with the evolution,
Value is defined from the view point of customers, with
the capability to deliver exactly the customer needed
product or service with minimal time at an appropriate
price. Value adding activities contribute directly to creating product or service customers really want.
Waste is any activity which absorbs resources but creates
no customer value. The seven kinds of waste were
reported as well (as shown in Table 2).
Since then, lean thinking is defined as initiatives which
focus on improving production efficiency and productivity by
concentrating on waste elimination and value creation from
customers’ perspective (Holweg 2007). Ever since ultimate
customers’ value becomes the key principle of lean thinking,
a precise definition of value through a dialogue with specific
customer in terms of the specific product with specific capabilities offered at a specific time is considered as the starting
point of lean application (Womack and Jones 1996).
Based on the customer-driven value definition, value
stream is ‘the set of all the specific actions required to bring
a specific product’ (Stone 2012), defines the work process
from the view of actions. These actions consider both information and physic flows within the overall value chain. In
order to realise value in the production process, the activities
in value stream were classified to three types of action: value
adding (VA), necessary but non-value adding (NNVA), and
non-value adding (NVA)/waste (Womack and Jones 1996).
They were defined as follow (McManus 2005):
VA is any operation contributes to the form, fit or function of the final customer required product in the production flow.
NNVA is any operation does not create value but is
necessary for streamlining the production process to
increase the value of the final product.
Waste is any operation that customer will not willing
to pay.
The value stream principle focuses on the transparency of
all the actions in the process to eliminate waste, by visualizing waste to all the participants. Moreover, value stream
Womack and Jones (1996)
The number of goods or information produced is larger and earlier than
customers’ needs, results in increased inventory.
Rework and replacement, which waste time and effort.
Inventory that is not required within a short period, thus increasing the
storage cost and risk of obsolescence.
Process costs money and effort without adding value to the customer.
Such processes may include rework, reprocessing, overproduction or
excess inventory.
Materials, work-in-process (WIP), or finished goods move with no value
added and result in increased processing time.
Workers stand idling and queuing in the process.
Any non-value adding motion that workers have to perform during
the process.
mapping (VSM), as an essential lean technique proposed by
Rother and Shook (2003) to understand VA and NVA activities in flow through systematic lean strategy, has been considered as the fairly generalisable lean implementation
framework (Marodin and Saurin 2013). Combined with
Womack and Jones’s (1996) work on VA and NVA definition,
the activities in production process were defined and organised systematically from the customers’ perspective. VSM has
been used as an initial step of lean transformation to explore
the wastes, inefficiencies and non-valued-added steps.
Braglia, Carmignani, and Zammori (2006) define value
from customer’s perspective and proposed that both VA and
NNVA are the activities currently needed to bring a specific
product from raw material to end customers. Belokar, Kumar,
and Kharb (2012) listed some examples of VA and NVA in
automotive industry by following the customer-defined
value: VA include machining, processing, painting, assembling; NVA are scrapping, sorting, storing, counting, moving
and documentation, etc. Besides, with the spreading of VSM,
the classifications are accepted and applied to analyse the
value and waste in other sectors (Shou et al. 2017). For
example, Schulze et al. (2013) agreed that customer value
perspective is particularly useful in aligning and adjusting
the understanding of whole process of product development. It is also argued that customer value needs to be
understood as a multi-dimensional concept. In healthcare
sector, value is defined by the final patient that surgical
patient performs activities are VA and any waiting during the
process are waste (Henrique et al. 2016). The application of
VSM is based on the analysis of VA, NNVA, and NVA in
the process.
Therefore, customer-centred value and waste definition
and the associated VA, NNVA, and NVA classification become
fundamental to embrace modern manufacturing paradigms
of lean thinking successfully. Table 3 shows the development
of the definition of VA and NVA in the manufacturing industry.
2.2. The definition and classification of VA and NVA in
the construction industry
The basic definition used to understand value and waste in
project management is generally in line with the definition
proposed in the manufacturing industry, i.e. maximize
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL
63
Table 3. The development of the definition of VA and NVA in manufacturing industry.
Reference
Ohno (1988, 57)
Shingo and Dillon
(1989, 76)
Womack and Jones
(1996)
(McManus 2005)
The definition of value
The definition of waste
VA
NVA
Value defined by system input
and system output, where
any loss in value during the
transformation process
(inefficiency) is considered to
be waste.
‘The needless, repetitious
movement that must be
eliminated immediately. For
example, waiting for or
stacking subassemblies.’
‘Waste is any activity that does
not contribute to operations,
such as waiting,
accumulating semi-processed
parts, reloading, passing
materials from one hand to
the other’
‘specifically any human activity
which absorbs resources but
creates no value’
Waste is any operation that
customer will not willing
to pay.
‘Value-added work means some
kind of processing –
changing the shape or
character of a product
or assembly.’
‘Value-adding operations that
actually transform materials,
changing either their form
or quality.’
‘Non-value-added work may be
regarded as waste in the
conventional sense’
VA is any operation contributes
to the form, fit or function
of the final customer
required product in the
production flow.
NNVA is any operation doesn’t
create value but is necessary
for streamlining the
production process to
increase the value of the
final product.
Value defined by product/
service characteristics by the
ultimate customer
customers’ value and minimize waste (Koskela 2004; Viana,
Formoso, and Kalsaas 2012). Koskela (1992) investigated the
introduction of lean in construction industry, as well as its
influence and interaction with project management functions
(Ballard and Howell 1998; Koskela 1997). Value and waste in
project management are defined according to the
Transformation-Flow-Value (TFV) theory (Koskela 1992). The
three basic concepts of Transformation, Flow, and Value
transfer the management attention from the schedule, cost
and output measures to the value created by all the work
processes (Koskela 1992). The transformation view discovers
which tasks are needed by the customer (Koskela 1997). The
transformation of inputs into outputs generates required
value for the construction process (i.e. VA). The view of flow
composes of transformation, inspection, moving and waiting
in the process (i.e. NNVA and waste). The aim is to minimise
unnecessary production or operation to reduce process variability (Koskela 1997). Accordingly, the classification of VA
and NVA activities are considered by following the
TFV definition.
The literature review shows that a few research has proposed a classification of VA and NVA in construction industry. Lee et al. (1999) divided construction activities into six
groups, including, any operations that (1) alter the shape or
other characteristics of materials or products are grouped
and considered as VA; (2) volume inspection, (3) quality
inspection, and (4) transportation are the three groups that
are considered as NNVA; finally, the activities that are relevant to (5) storage and (6) delay are the two groups of NVA/
waste in the process. Diekmann et al. (2004) followed
Womack and Jones’s (1996) definition but further clarified
the definitions of NNVA and waste. NNVA is the activities
required for project operation although these activities do
not have effects on the finished product. Some typical NNVA
activities include material positioning, in-process inspection,
and temporary work and support activities (Diekmann et al.
2004). This classification has been adopted by many follow€o
€k and
ing lean studies in the construction industry (Ho
Stehn 2008; Gao and Low 2014). Kartam, Ballard, and Ibbs
‘Operations that do not add
value, such as walking to
get parts, unpacking
supplied parts, and
operating switches, may be
considered waste’
(1997) classified waste activities as those activities that add
no value but cost to the process. Waiting for materials, waiting for instructions, rework, and inspection are considered
NVA activities in the construction process.
However, Jørgensen and Emmitt (2008) argued that the
concept of customer value is inadaptable to the understanding of VA and NVA in a project environment due to the
involvement of different customers and users within different
project phases. Mao and Zhang (2008) also had concerns
about the adaptability of the definitions and classifications of
VA and NVA in the construction process. For example, Mao
and Zhang (2008) stated that support activities such as earth
transportation are unavoidable and critical to creating value
to the contractor and it is not appropriate to classify VA and
NVA activities based on the client-driven ‘transformation’ and
‘flow’ concepts.
The results suggest that the complexity of activities
involved in value stream lead to the discrepancy of the VA,
NNVA and NVA classification. Therefore, a list of well-classified VA and NVA time/activities in a specific context can
facilitate the effective current performance evaluation.
2.3. The definition and classification of VA and NVA in
maintenance project
According to the definition proposed by the Maintenance
Engineering Society of Australia, maintenance management
is recognised as ‘the engineering decisions and associated
actions necessary and sufficient for the optimisation of specified capability’ (MESA 1995). Capability is referred as the ability to perform a specification within a range of performance
levels. The characteristics of capability may include function,
capacity, rate, quality, responsiveness, and degradation
(Ahuja and Khamba 2008). Due to these features, value in
maintenance project focuses on improving reliability, safety,
productivity and quality of the plant (Marquez 2007). The
maintenance service is assumed as an asset from two levels:
completing specific maintenance items and managing the
64
W. SHOU ET AL.
maintenance operation (Mostafa et al. 2015). Therefore, value
is identified from the asset perspective which can improve
its availability and reliability to complete the essential tasks
(Mostafa et al. 2015). In maintenance system, waste usually
consists of outdated procedures, overstocked, underused
inventory of equipment, material, parts, as well as wasted
labour, time, and transportation (u Yile, XueHang, and Lei
2008). According to Baluch, Abdullah, and Mohtar (2012),
Clarke, Mulryan, and Liggan (2010) and Davies and
Greenough (2010), waste in maintenance projects
may include:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Unproductive work – work that does not need to
be done.
Delays in motion – waiting times, including delays waiting for parts, machinery, people, etc.
Unnecessary motion – unnecessary transportation to
tool stores or workshops, looking for items, moving
mobile work stations around without good reasons.
Poor management of inventory – not able to deliver the
right parts at the right time.
Rework – repeat tasks, or introduce additional tasks, as a
result of poor workmanship.
Underutilisation of people – not using people effectively
based on their capabilities.
Ineffective data management – Collecting data that has
no value, or failing to collect vital data.
Misusage of machinery – incorrect operation leading to
maintenance work being done when it is not needed.
TAM is a major periodic and comprehensive routine maintenance programme in petrochemical industry (Duffuaa and
Ben Daya 2004). From the engineering point of view, TAM
involves inspections, overhaul, scheduled cleaning, modification, adjustments, repairs and replacements of new parts or
equipment of plant to ensure operational reliability (Duffuaa
and Ben Daya 2004). The main objective of TAM is to
improve the plants to ensure optimal and efficient operational performance. TAM is a project environment in which
the involvement of planning and control is part of the system (Bevilacqua, Ciarapica, and Giacchetta 2009). It is, therefore, necessary to consider flow and value generation in
operation process by measuring the planning and control
efficiency. The value concept defined by Womack and Jones
(1996) is widely accepted for measuring maintenance performance. Any operation in the maintenance process that a
customer would be willing to pay for is defined as
value adding.
Some research have been conducted concerning the use
of VSM in maintenance and particularly in its application
within process industry. For example, Abdulmalek and
Rajgopal (2007) used VSM to analysis the current performance of the production in process sector and evaluated the
proposed lean initiatives via simulation. King and King (2015)
described in details of the adaptation of VSM in process
industries. Shou et al. (2015) applied VSM to analyses the
execution efficiency of a TAM project. Sawhney, Kannan, and
Li (2009) developed a VSM to evaluate breakdown
maintenance operation. Chowdary, Ojha, and Alexander
(2018) applied VSM to analyses and propose improvement
strategies for the refinery maintenance. However, limited
studies have been found to elaborate VA and NVA activities
when apply VSM in TAM projects, the identification of VA
and NVA activities in turnaround project is based on
the definition.
Few researchers have realized the complexity of TAM projects and suggested the necessity to propose a VA and NVA
classification framework. Ghazali and Halib (2011) proposed
the classification of TAM activities by institutional and organisational elements. Six generic processes in TAM were proposed, namely formation of TAM organisation, resource
mobilisation and management, communication, conflict management, contracts management, and relationships with
external organisations. Similarly, the Monadelphous public
report divided TAM activities into four types from contractors’ perspective, including essential support activities, tool
time, non-essential activities, and non-maintenance execution
time (Monadelphous 2015). Tool time is the physical operation. Essential support is the activities that can assist the
safe completion of tool operations. Non-essential activities
are considered as waste that does not add value to the
maintenance operation, such as waiting, and additional
transformation. Non-maintenance execution time includes
the maintenance activities that are not included in the work
order. STO Planning Handbook published by InterPlan
System categorized the TAM activities to four types, including safety (e.g. permits, testing, gas freeing, neutralising, fire
and hole watch), inspection (before and after repairs), repairs
(on-site and off-site, or outside shops), support (e.g. scaffolding, lighting, hauling, painting and clean-up) (Ertl 2013). A
classification framework of the TAM activities from the value
and waste perspective has not yet been proposed.
The management involvement due to unique features
such as dynamic scope, extensive permits required for every
operation, and hour-based performance measurement etc. is
overwhelming in comparison with the demands in general
projects. Therefore, the activities conducted in TAM project
have to be identified and appropriately categorized in order
to evaluate the VA and NVA attributes of the process precisely.
3. Research method
The challenges identified in the literature review provide evidence of the necessity to develop the classification of VA
and NVA when applying VSM in TAM projects (Figure 1). The
aim of the research design is to develop the classification
system and understand how the proposed classification system can lead to higher acceptance of lean concepts and the
performance of waste elimination. The research framework
proposed by Fercoq, Lamouri, and Carbone (2016) is the process of performing an experiment follows five steps.
Step 1: The clarification of the definition of VA and NVA. The
definition of value and waste, and the relative VA, NNVA,
and waste are
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL
65
Step 1: Definition
TAM campaign
2012
Output:
Initial version of
standardised
classification system
Step 2: Classification
development
Output:
Improved
Standardised
classification system
Step 3: Classification
Improvement
Output:
Validated
Standardised
classification system
TAM campaign
2014
TAM campaign
2015
Focus group studies
Epistemological
adequacy
Step 4: Classification
validation
Reusability
Reliability
Step 5: Classification
validation
VSM case study
Legend
Research step
Research method
Research
focus
Input data
Output
Figure 1. Research methods for developing VA and NVA classification system.
Step 2: The development of the classification of VA and NVA.
A draft classification system was developed by elaborating
the definitions and classifications related to lean application
in TAM projects.
Step 3&4: The improvement and validation of the classification of VA and NVA. In order to improve the proposed classification system, focus-group study was adopted. Focus
group is a controlled group discussion on specific topics in
a defined environment (Krueger and Casey 2014; Leung,
Yu, and Chan 2014). It is particularly useful to obtain results
from the interactive group discussion rather than from individuals (Vaughn, Schumm, and Sinagub 1996). Leung, Yu,
and Chan (2014) summarised that the number of interviewees that need to be involved in a focus group, which can
vary from two, three, four to six (mini-group), seven to ten
(small), to eleven–twenty (super-group) (Cooper and
Schindler 2006). Focus group allows interviewees to examine and challenge the views to avoid the negative impact
of individual bias (Fisher 2011). The classification system
was then refined in two focus group studies. The refined
classification system was validated in the third focus group
study in terms of the ontology effectiveness.
Step 5: The evaluation of the classification of VA and NVA.
Finally, a sample case was used to evaluate the reliability of
the classification system.
3.1. The clarification of the definition of VA and NVA
One of the objectives of the study is to investigate the VA
and NVA definitions in TAM project. According to the
customer-centred value proposed by Womack and Jones
(1996), project client plays a similar role as ‘customer’. TAM is
a project initiated by plant operators and executed by professional engineers to ensure multidisciplinary maintenance
activities are completed within the strict schedule and limited resources. The successful delivery of projects that meet
clients’ expectation (i.e. minimised cost, shortest duration
and highest quality) is the main objective of the project
(Institute 2000). Meanwhile, the aim of lean maintenance is
to improve plant availability and reliability through efficient
maintenance. Thus, in this research,
Value in TAM management is related to the successful
completion of the maintenance activities assigned to trade crew.
It is related to the maintenance activities that contribute directly
to the plant productivity and includes all the physical
maintenance operations.
According to Tommelein, Riley, and Howell (1999), the
value stream of TAM is the transformation of maintenance
activities, which centres upon maintenance staff who move
from one functional maintenance to another with the assistance of resources, such as equipment, tools, materials and
information. Accordingly,
VA is the group of activities of trade crews that contributes directly to the plant productivity.
NNVA includes the group of activities that have no direct
contribution to the functions of the plant but are critical
to the maintenance process effectiveness and efficiency.
There are two elements in this group: one is related to
the activities to support effective maintenance operation,
66
W. SHOU ET AL.
Table 4. The cases used for activity development.
TAM project
Gas plant
major turnaround
Input data
Project operation schedule
Documents for each
Workpackage
Number of activities
during execution
2468
Gas plant
major turnaround
3204
Gas plant
major turnaround
2135
such as scaffolding erection and crane lifting; the other
one is related to the activities to facilitate process efficiency, such as the required resources and specification
that have been delivered/assigned to the right task at the
right time.
Waste is any activity that represents a potential risk to
the plant reliability and maintenance operation efficiency.
Improving workflow efficiency ensures that the right task
is completed with adequate resources at the right time. In
other words, according to the waste definition, waste
reduction in maintenance project environment focuses on
removing unproductive maintenance work and reducing
workflow variability. In TAM project, in order to minimise
the loss of production due to plant shutdown, the assumption is that only the imperative tasks are planned and
scheduled to ensure the shutdown period is as short as
possible. Therefore, it is assumed that unproductive maintenance work is eliminated in the planning phase. The
maintenance process evaluation focuses on variation reduction.
3.2. The development of the classification of VA
and NVA
According to the literature review, the basic customer-centred value definition is the foundation of lean implementation in maintenance projects. The concepts were refined
with the specifics of both project management and TAM
management considerations. Specifically, Han et al (2012)
and Mao and Zhang (2008) were referred to as their work
were considered as the most relevant to this study because:
(1) the focus of the customer-centred value definition is on
investigating efficiency of process management in TAM project, rather than simply analyzing physical transformation; (2)
the focus of value stream recognition is on analyzing trade
crews’ contribution in process, rather than classifying production activities.
Main work scope involved
Turbine hot gas path inspection
Compressor bearing &
seal inspection
Compressor major inspection
Valve repairs & replacement
Vessel inspections
Turbine major inspection
Statutory vessel inspection
Bearing & seal inspection
Tray modification
Valve overhauls, upgrades and
replacement
Compressor major inspection
Compressor major overhaul
Bearing & seal inspection
Turbine and compressor
inspections
Line and vessel repairs
Valves maintenance
Man-hour
consumed (hour)
56,007
Year
2015
62,354
2014
51,338
2012
For the purpose of this study, the development of the
classification system was based on the tool time proposed
by Monadelphous (2015), as well as the four types of categories proposed in STO planning Handbook considering the
functionalities of maintenance activities.
In addition, activities conducted during the turnaround
execution of three TAM projects in an oil and gas client
between 2012 and 2015 were analyzed to finalise the list (as
shown in Table 4). The names of the clients were kept
anonymous for confidentiality. Bititci et al. (2011) have
proved the importance of managerial process to the dynamic
capabilities of the firm. Therefore, all the activities conducted
during TAM project were elaborated. A total of 7808 activities were identified and analyzed. The main work scope
included main facilities in the gas plant. The activities in TAM
projects were categorized along two dimensions: context
and effort. As shown in Table 5, the context dimension divided the activities into major domains: tool operation, safety,
quality inspection and support. Within each context, the
effort dimension classifies activities according to the functionalities of operators.
A classification framework was then proposed by considering both the redefined value and waste as well as the
categorized activities.
3.3. The improvement and validation of the
classification
In this study, three separate focus group studies were conducted to explore three specific issues based on participants’
experience, aiming to address three questions:
1.
2.
Are there any missing activities can be added in and/or
misunderstanding of the activities in the classification system?
Is the taxonomy of the classification system correct to
reflect TAM operations?
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL
67
Table 5. The categories of activities in TAM projects.
Context
Effort
Tool operation
Safety check
Permits sign on/off conducted by supervisor
Permit record conducted by supervisor
HSE data collection and record conducted by inspector
Quality Inspection
QA/QC conducted by inspector (welding, tube)
QA/QC sign on/off conducted by supervisor
QA/QC conducted by quality measuring instrument (QMI) technician
Testing conducted by inspector (cathodic protection, condition monitoring, crane, electrical,
lifting equipment, protected coating, rotating, etc.)
Testing sign in/off conducted by supervisor
Testing record conducted by supervisor
On-site:
– Physical engineering operation conducted by:
Electrician
Instrument/electrical technician
HVAC technician
Lagger/insulator
Mechanical fitter
Operator
Welder
Boilermaker
Gas fitter/plumber
Service technician
General service operator
Rotating mechanical
– Operation sign on/off conducted by supervisor
– Operation update and turnover conducted by supervisor
– Work packages (WPs) sign in/off by Superintendant
– Daily progress update by scheduler
Off-site:
– Physical engineering operation conducted by:
Painter
Blaster
Welder
Valve vendor
Support
3.
–
Scaffold erection, modification, and dismantlement activities conducted by
Scaffolder
Lifting, rope access or rig up activities conducted by
Rigger
Dogman
Crane operator
Store management relevant activities which conducted by Materials officer/storeman
All the communication conducted by Communication technician
Logistics for labour and resource delivery activities conducted by
– Bus driver
– Truck driver
– Fork lift driver
Electronic data compiling conducted by administrator
–
–
–
Is the classification system effective to classify NA and
NVA activities in TAM operation?
3.3.1. Preparation of the focus group study
Two rules of participant selection were set to ensure data
reliability. Participants were selected if they have more than
10 years of working experience in planning, delivering, and
managing TAM projects in the oil and gas industry and have
participated in TAM projects in the past three years.
According to the suggested optimum group sizes (6–12
interviewees) (Krueger and Casey 2014), there were 10 practitioners in total, including two TAM schedule planners, two
work packages (WPs) designers and one production
managers who was in charge of the planning and control of
permit system, one TAM superintendent who had specialized
expertise in process management, one site manager specialized in maintenance operation, one off-site component maintenance vendor, and two lean participants. As shown in
Table 6, the participants had experience in various aspects of
TAM projects. The selection of participants was therefore
considered adequate.
3.3.2. Running the focus group studies with appropriate
data collection
As the moderator of the three focus group studies, the
author first introduced the purpose of the focus group study,
68
W. SHOU ET AL.
followed by the explanation of the ground rules of equality
of speech (participants were encouraged to freely provide
any comments, suggestions, objections and doubts) and confidentiality arrangement (Beasley and Jenkins 2003). Before
the start of the discussion, all the participants made a brief
self-introduction of their current roles in TAM projects. They
were then asked about the perceptions and opinions of the
draft framework. Both discussions followed a predefined
semi-structured framework and schedule to ensure that
effective information could be collected and new ideas could
be brought up.
To ensure the validity of the information provided, discussions were reviewed and summarized based on the data
from both recorded audiotapes and the immediate notes
taken by the moderator during the discussion. Audiotapes
enabled the discussions to be reviewed in details at any time
and the notes highlighted the key points provided by participants during the discussion.
3.3.3. Measurement protocol
The criteria proposed by El-Diraby and Kashif (2005) for validating ontology effectiveness and representation were
used. This method was also adopted by Macarulla et al.
(2013) to validate defects classification in construction. The
validation was conducted by capturing opinions of participants regarding (1) epistemological adequacy, (2) reusability
and (3) reliability. Epistemological adequacy refers to the
extent to which the classification resembles the cognitive
sentences. Four questions were proposed to address epistemological clarity, intuitiveness, relevance and completeness (see Table 7). Participants were asked to rank from 1
to 6 of the extent (with 6 being the most favourable) in
each question.
Table 6. Profile of the 10 participants and their contribution.
No.
Participants
Expertise
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
TAM schedule planner from client
TAM schedule planner from client
WPs designer from client
WPs designer from client
Production manager from client
TAM superintendent from client
Site manager from contractor
Maintenance vendor
Lean research from Curtin University
Lean research from Curtin University
Schedule planning and control
schedule planning and control
WPs design and management
WPs design and management
Permit system planning and control
Process management
Maintenance operation
Off-site component maintenance
Lean production knowledge
Lean application knowledge
Reusability refers to the extent to which the classification
system can be reused to classify VA and NVA in other situations. The same ranking rule was applied (see Table 8).
3.3. The evaluation of the classification
A VSM procedure was adopted to investigate both the
reliability and the efficiency of the proposed classification
system. A sample case of the valve replacement was selected
as an example. First, a current state map was developed. The
activities identified in the current state map were classified
according to the categories proposed in the classification
system. Cohen’s (1968) Kappa was used to measure the
inter-rater reliability. Kappa is the indicator which shows the
extent of difference between the observed agreement and
the expected agreement. It has been argued in the literature
that values above 0.75 indicate excellent agreement beyond
chance; 0.40–0.75 for fair to good agreement beyond chance;
and below 0.40 for poor agreement beyond chance
(Banerjee et al. 1999). The performance in terms of VA and
NVA in the target process was measured and analyzed. A
future state map was proposed that enables the comparison
of current and future process.
4. Results
4.1. VA and NVA classification in TAM projects
4.1.1.
VA and NVA
TAM projects
classification
development
in
Planning and execution of TAM project is a comprehensive
management system that involves two levels of maintenance
activities according to their relevance to maintenance WPs:
maintenance execution activities and non-maintenance execution activities. Maintenance execution activities refer to all
the operations conducted to ensure the completion of the
maintenance activities in the WP. This type of activities
includes all the tool operation, resource support, and safety
management activities. On the other hand, non-maintenance
execution activities, such as daily prestart meeting, are
necessary activities although they are not directly related to
maintenance tasks in WPs. As such, there is a need to differentiate the activities based on their relevance to maintenance WPs at the beginning of the classification. The
proposed classification aims to provide guidelines for assisting the lean application in TAM projects. The focus of lean
Table 7. Evaluation criteria for epistemological adequacy (El-Diraby and Kashif 2005; Macarulla et al. 2013).
Criteria
Epistemological
Epistemological
Epistemological
Epistemological
Question
clarity
intuitiveness
relevance
completeness
Q1:
Q2:
Q3:
Q4:
Do all concepts and relations in the classification system have clear and unequivocal meaning?
Does the classification system provide a vocabulary that matches the intuition of the experts?
Are all the concepts in the taxonomy relevant for the domain?
Does the classification system cover all relevant concepts that may be relevant to any task, activities?
Ranking rule
1,
1,
1,
1,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
3,
3,
3,
4,
4,
4,
4,
5,
5,
5,
5,
6
6
6
6
Table 8. Evaluation criteria for reusability (El-Diraby and Kashif 2005, Macarulla et al. 2013).
Criteria
Classification reusability
Domain reusability
Question
Ranking rule
Q5: Is the classification usable for all types of TAM project in oil and gas industry?
Q6: Is the classification dependent on certain types of domains?
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL
improvement is on improving maintenance process efficiency. Therefore, classification in this research is limited to
the activities in WPs.
For the classification of VA activities, this subcategory is
developed by considering the aim of the activity, which is to
improve plant productivity. Based on the aim, the subcategory is related to the tool activities, which are related to
the execution conducted by operation and engineering
teams, and includes the main maintenance operations work,
such as isolation removal and flange unbolt, physical work
on all or part of a plant.
NNVA activities include the critical activities that are conducted to support the effective and efficient execution of
the aforementioned tool activities. The activities in this group
are further divided into five groups based on their functionalities: including (1) supportive activities for tool operation,
which are related to the activities conducted by contractors
to support and facilitate the execution of main tool activities.
The activities mainly include scaffolding construction and dismantlement conducted by scaffolder and rigger, and lifting
work conducted by crane operator; (2) supportive activities
for critical resources, which refer to the activities that are
performed to deliver/transfer/assign the right resources to
the right WPs, such as the essential workers’ travel and transportation of tools and equipment on site; (3) critical safety
checking activities, which are related to the activities that
contributed to the safe execution of maintenance, such as
testing, quality assurance/quality control conducted by
supervisor; (4) critical inspection activities, which include
inspection and quality check after the scheduled maintenance; and (5) permit authorization, which is mandatory
before operation. This category is isolated from critical safety
checking activities because of its big impact on the maintenance progress.
Waste in TAM projects is largely subdivided into macrolevel and micro-level by referring to (Han, Lee, and PenaMora 2011). The former category refers to waste that is
caused by external factors such as weather, or unexpected
work scope change. The latter one is caused by the internal
factors of the process, such as unnecessary waiting, moving
or inventory which resulted by inefficient resource/process management.
An important underlying assumption for this micro-level
waste identification relies upon the recognition of inefficient
maintenance execution as well as the factors that can cause
variations in an activity. The seven types of waste were identified within the TAM project environment (see Table 9) by
referring to Baluch, Abdullah, and Mohtar (2012), Clarke,
Mulryan, and Liggan (2010) and Davies and Greenough’s
(2010) research.
4.1.2. VA and NVA classification improvement and validation in TAM projects
4.1.2.1. Focus group study 1 (improvement). A focus group
study was conducted to identify any missing activities can
be added in and/or misunderstanding of the activities in the
classification system. In the discussion, some participants
argued that some activities, such as crane operation,
69
scaffolding construction and dismantling, should be categorized as VA considering its importance in the process. In this
research, they were classified as NNVA by emphasizing the
view point of client for the value and waste definition.
During the focus group study, some interviewees used
the name of activity as waste. For example, one interviewee
pointed forklift as a kind of waste to indicate the delay or
inefficient of such operation. To address this issue, the interviewees suggested the use of qualifier (e.g. inefficient,
excess) to differentiate value and waste.
Another discussion was the unexpected scope change
because of late activity requests. This category included the
added extra jobs due to inefficient planning and was not
included in the classification system. Interviewees suggested
that these activities have a huge impact on the whole processes. Therefore, all late activity requests were classified as
pure waste.
It was noticed that not all planned activities are completed when comparing the as plan and as-is operation.
Participants suggested that an incomplete category of waste
should be proposed to include missing or incomplete operations.
4.1.2.2. Focus group study 2 (improvement). The second
focus group study was conducted to examine the taxonomy
of the classification system. Interviewees suggested that TAM
activities can include both maintenance and information
flows. It was proposed that the categories of the classification system should be separated into maintenance activities
and relevant administrative support considering the impact
of interface complexity among the maintenance execution.
Administrative activities aim to assist the interaction between
site operation and senior management. One of the examples
of this type of activities is progress updates and handover in
tool activities.
Another discussion was related to the different classification of daily safety report, which was included in the work
log of both schedulers and safety checkers. As a result, daily
safety report was assigned to safety checkers.
Table 9 shows the VA and NVA classification for TAM projects when all participants’ considerations are addressed.
4.1.2.3. Focus group study 3 (validation). The third focus
group study was to validate ontology; effectiveness and representation were used in this research. The results in terms
of the epistemological adequacy and reusability are shown
in Table 10. The responses on epistemological adequacy
(Q1–Q4) were generally positive. All the mean scores are
higher than 4.5, which means interviewees positively support
the epistemological adequacy on the aspects of clarity, intuitiveness, relevance and completeness. The classification of
the TAM activities can assist lean thinking and implementation in TAM projects.
The mean score of Q1 (4.5) and Q2 (4.7) indicate that all
the interviewees agreed that the detailed classification of the
activities in each category is adequate as all the activities are
classified based on two dimensions: the content of the activity and the executor of the activity. The mean score of 5.3 of
70
W. SHOU ET AL.
Table 9. VA and NVA classification for TAM project.
Level 2
Category
VA
Level 1
Main tool activities
Maintenance activities
Engineering operation (on-site)
– Engineering operator
Engineering operation (off-site)
– Engineering operator
Administrative activities
NVA but
necessary
Supportive activities for
tool operation
Supportive activities for
critical resources
Logistics for equipment/tools transportation
– Tools transport to/from warehouse
– Equipment transportation
Logistics for material transportation
– Material transportation to laydown area
(on site)
– Material transportation for
refurbishment (off-site)
Critical safety
checking activities
Safety check of clean, inspection and
measurement
– inspector
Critical quality
inspection activities
QA/QC – QMI technician
– Alignment/measurement check
QA/QC
– QMI technician
Testing
– inspector
Waste
Erection, modification or dismantlement of
temporary structure (i.e. Scaffolding)
– scaffolder
Preparation, operation or dismantlement of
lifting and rigging:
– crane operator
– rigger
– dogman
Logistics for labour
– Workers’ travel to/from site
Permit authorisation
Overproduction
Defects
Poor management
of inventory
Unproductive work
Ineffective
data management
Waiting
Unnecessary motion/
transportation
Missing and/or
uncompleted tasks
WPs sign on/off
– superintendent
Operation sign on/off
– supervisor
Progress update and handover
– supervisor
Daily progress update
– scheduler
Communication between supervisor
and scaffolder
Communication between supervisor and crane
operator, rigger and dogman
Communication between supervisor and
contractors
Electronic data compiling – administrator
Communication between supervisor and
material office/storeman
Electronic data compiling – administrator
Communication between supervisor and
truck drivers
Progress update and handover – supervisor
Communication between supervisor and off-site
supply chain
Electronic data compiling – administrator
HSE data collection and record – inspector
Risk assessment report – supervisor
Communication between supervisor and
HSE inspector
QA/QC sign on/off – supervisor
Communication between supervisor and
inspector/QMI technician
Electronic data compiling – administrator
Testing sign on/off – supervisor
Testing record – inspector
Electronic data compiling – administrator
Permit sign on/off
Permit record – supervisor
– supervisor
Communication between supervisor and
permit manager
Predecessor tool activities are completed in advance, which may result in unplanned execution to avoid
waiting, further causing temporally increased resource request, space congestion, or interruption to other
relevant activities.
Rework or reprocessing, which can cause delay of the succeeding activities, leading to resource idling
and poor workmanship.
Not able to deliver the right material at the right time
Lack of material, tools, and equipment that can cause process delay
Unnecessary activities due to poor operation planning
Employees being unfamiliar with operation, causing unnecessary motion and defects
Collecting data that is of no use
Failure to collect data which is vital
Inadequate data updating
Any delay in the activities of process transformation, such as the delay due to the unavailability of
required resources, including tools and equipment, material, crane, workers and operation permits.
Unnecessary waiting due to poor communication. For example, follow-up activities do not start timely
when the predeceasing activity is completed.
Any unnecessary travel of the equipment, tool, and labours on site, such as the trips to the workshop,
looking for items, moving cranes without good reason.
Any task has not been completed in process by comparing to as planned schedule.
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL
71
Table 10. Interview results regarding epistemological adequacy and reusability of classification.
Question
Epistemological adequacy
Reusability
Q1:
Q2:
Q3:
Q4:
Q5:
Q6:
Do all concepts and relations in the classification system have clear and unequivocal meaning?
Does the classification system provide a vocabulary that matches the intuition of the participants?
Are all the concepts in the taxonomy relevant for the domain?
Does the classification system cover all relevant concepts that may be relevant to any task, activities?
Is the classification usable for all types of TAM project in oil and gas industry?
Is the classification dependent on certain types of domains?
Q3 indicates that the relevance of the proposed classification
system in TAM projects is adequate. In addition, the mean
score of 4.5 of Q4 demonstrates the completeness of the
classification system to include adequate TAM activities. As
the classification system is based on three major TAM projects in Australia, the completeness of the classification system is supported. However, the interviewees pointed out
that only the activities in operation schedule and work packages were considered in this study. Some activities outside
the scope of operation and work packages may also need to
be included. For example, the activities such as daily prestart
meeting, vehicle checks and maintenance, site musters, and
training etc., these activities were carried out at non-maintenance execution time but have an impact to the maintenance execution.
In addition, the mean score of 5.2 of the Q5 shows that
the proposed classification system is suitable for a wide
range of turnaround projects in the oil and gas industry. The
maintenance planning and execution in valve replacement
and compressor overhaul are desirable to use this classification system. It was also pointed out that the understanding
of VA and NVA was from clients’ perspective. The activities
that contributed to the maintenance process effectiveness
(e.g. scaffolding, crane work) could also be categorized as VA
from the viewpoint of contractors. In future research, the
classification system should consider various viewpoint, such
as operation contractor and resource vendors.
The score of 4.5 of Q6 indicates that all the interviewees
agreed on the applicability of the system in TAM projects in
addition to oil and gas plants. The understanding of value,
VA and waste might be similar in project-based maintenance
execution in domains such as power plant and airport.
However, the interviewees pointed out that the proposed
classification system was developed based on maintenance
features and types of tasks that were partially unique to
TAM. For example, oil and gas plants are usually located at
remote area and resource availability is a big concern in this
type of project. This specific feature explains why the waste
caused by resources availability was highlighted.
4.2. The validation and evaluation of the classification
of VA and NVA
The reliability and efficiency of the proposed classification
system was validated in the VSM case study. As shown in
Figure 2, a current state map was developed. The classification of VA and NNVA for both maintenance and administrative activities were elaborated according to the classification
system in Table 11. There were five main tool activities and
seven NNVA activities in the current process. The relevant
Mean
4.5
4.7
5.3
4.5
5.2
4.5
administrative activities to support the maintenance activities
are also shown in Table 10.
The results of Kappa test reflect the reliability. As shown in
Table 12, the result of 0.96 indicates an almost perfect agreement. The classification system was accepted by all participants,
who agreed that the proposed classification system can be
used to analyze the performance of the maintenance process.
From the analysis, it can be concluded that different types
of operations were considered within each category of the classification system. In addition, different activities were defined
according to the two dimensions of operator and operation. It
is revealed that the understanding and classification of value
and waste in this research can be used to classify VA and NVA.
As shown in Table 13, the total cycle time of the target process was 20.65 h and the processing time was 11.85 h. 6.5 h
were categorized as VA. Similarly, 3.85 h were categorized as
NNVA. 1.5 h process time variation (excess processing time) and
a difference of 8.8 h between the cycle time and the processing
time were observed and need to be analyzed. Some of the reasons that lead to variations were listed in the current state
map, such as the 10% rework at the process of Permit Sign On
because of tool and equipment requirement. In addition,
40–50% delay of the crane support was reported at the process
of Break Flange. Increased work-in-process inventory at the process of Fit Blind as the Blind started to place on was recorded
in 47% of valves removal process. The waste analysis revealed
that the wrong permit issued and lack of prioritisation of valve
isolations and painting are the two causes have the extremely
high priority to be solved. Delay due to the unavailability of
material required, administration work, crane and unskilled
workers are another four causes that lead to variations.
In order to manage the gaps identified by the current
state map, some changes were proposed as indicated in
future state map (Figure 3). It was asked to improve workflow by removing obstacles between tasks of both operational and information flows and to increase flow reliability
of operation, resource supply and information by reducing
the waste due to unfulfilled conditions to complete an activity. It should be achieved by identifying and removing
redundant interfaces between activities and standardising
procedures in work flows and reducing flow fluctuation of
the maintenance operation within distinct locations.
As can be seen from Table 14, a 12.12% increment in VA
ratio due to removal of waste in achieved. The total amount
of cycle time has 6.35 h reduction. The total processing time
decreases from 11.85 h to 10.9 h.
5. Conclusion
In this research, a classification system of VA and NVA that
can assist the lean application in turnaround projects in the
Figure 2. Current state map.
Issue report
Administrative
activity
VA
activity
ISDD
PTV
STV
CT
PT
VA
NVABN
Work-in-process
inventory (WIP)
Cycle Time
Processing Time
Value Adding Time
Non-Value Adding Time But
Necesary
Processing Time Variation
Start Time Variation
3
CT= 2hrs
PT= 0.25hr
NVABN=0.25hr
Batch= 1
PTV=0
STV=1.2hr
OTSR=17%
Rework= 10% of
tool and
equipment
requirement
CT= 3hrs
PT= 1.7hrs
NVABN=1.5hrs
Batch= 1
PTV=0.2hr
STV=0.6hr
OTSR=34%
Rework:20%
Information
interaction between
work crews
Operations
•
Permit Sign On
Operations
Team M contacts Team
I regarding availability
Tool and equipment
requirement
Issue Permits
•
•
Drain
Decontaminant
Operations
CT= 3hrs
PT= 1hr
VA=1hr
Batch= 1
PTV=0
STV=0.5hr
OTSR=27%
CT= 3hrs
PT= 2hrs
VA=1.5hr
Batch= 1
PTV=0.5hr
STV=0.5hr
OTSR=23%
INLEC
Isolate/Disconnect
CT= 1hrs
PT= 1hrs
NVABN=0.7hr
Batch= 1
PTV=0.3hr
STV=0.2hr
OTSR=43%
General Services
CT= 1.5hrs
PT= 0.1hr
NVABN=0.1hr
Batch= 1
PTV=0
STV=0.4hr
OTSR=23%
Fit Blinds
3
Onsite
Transportation
Logistics
CT= 0.7hr
PT= 0.7hr
NVABN=0.7hr
Batch= 1
PTV=0
STV=0.5hr
OTSR=14%
CT= 2.5hrs
PT= 2.5hrs
VA=2.5hrs
Batch= 1
PTV=0
STV=0.4hr
OTSR=16%
Valve Mech Team
Blind placed
on when 47%
valve removal
Attend Workfront
with Truck
Logistics
Team M contacts
logistics
Team M contacts
General service
Package
CT= 1.5hrs
PT= 1.5hrs
VA=1.2hrs
Batch= 1
PTV=0.3hr
STV=0.7hr
OTSR=15%
Valve Mech Team
Remove Valve
Co-ordinator
Schedule
Schedule
Valve Team Leader
CT= 1.5hrs
PT= 0.3hr
VA=0.3hr
Batch= 1
PTV=0
STV=0.3hr
OTSR=15%
Break Flanges
Valve Mech team/
Ops
Team M contacts
crane support
crane
support: 4050% delays
Schedule
Turnaround
Superintendent
CT= 0.2hr
PT= 0.2hr
NVABN= 0.1hr
Batch= 1
PTV=0.1hr
STV=0.3hr
OTSR=46%
Contact Supply
Chain
Valve Co-ordinator
6
CT= 0.75hr
PT= 0.6hr
NVABN=0.5hr
Batch= 1
PTV=0.1hr
STV=0.4hr
OTSR=38%
Logistics
Offsite Transport
PT for each
valve= 15 mins
Daily Progress
Documentation
Logistics
PT for each
valve= 15 mins
Daily Progress
Documentation
Valve Co-ordinator
11.85hrs
per
valve
20.65hrs
per
valve
Stage 2
72
W. SHOU ET AL.
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL
73
Table 11. VA and NVA classification using standardised classification systems.
Level 2
Category
Level 1
Maintenance activities
VA
Main tool activities
NVA but necessary
Supportive activities for
tool operation
Isolate/disconnect – INLEC
Break flange – valve mech team/Ops
Remove valve – valve mech team
Fit blind – valve mech team
Drain decontaminant – operations
Preparation, operation or dismantlement of
lifting and rigging:
– crane operator
Too and equipment requirement, searching and
transportation – operations
Packing – general service
Truck supply for workfront – logistics
Onsite transportation – logistics
Offsite transportation – logistics
Supportive activities for
critical resources
Issue permit – operations
Permit sign on
– operations
Permit authorisation
Result
Number of activities
Number of interviewees
Observed agreement
Expected agreement
Kappa
23
10
0.89
0.72
0.96
Classification
CT
PT
VA – tool activities
NNVA
Waste in PT in total
Difference between
CT and PT in total
Maintenance
hours
20.65
11.85
6.5
3.85
0.8
0.7
1.5
Communication between mech team and INLEC
team
Communication between mech team and
general service
Communication between mech team and
logistics
Communication between coordinator and off-site
supply chain
Communication between coordinator and
truck drivers
Permit record – supervisor
Communication between schedule coordinator
and permit manager
5.1. Theoretical and practical implementation
Table 13. The measurement of the current process.
Processing time
variation for
each type of
activity
Communication between mech team and
crane operator
development of lean strategies to remove waste in TAM setting; and (2) increased accuracy of the identification of waste
in each type of maintenance activities, which leads to a
higher performance level of TAM project management in oil
and gas industry.
Table 12. Kappa Test for results of classification reliability.
Item
Administrative activities
Daily progress documentation
– schedule coordinator
Daily progress documentation
– logistics
Difference
between
CT and PT for
each type
of activity
4.2
4.6
8.8
oil and gas industry was developed. This research defined
the activities of VA and NVA by adapting the manufacturing
setting to a TAM setting through a practical and structured
approach. The activities conducted in TAM projects were
identified and classified to align with the proposed definition
of VA and NVA. The maintenance activities and relevant
interactions and communications in TAM process were covered in the classification system. The classification system
was improved and validated by three focus group studies.
The validation demonstrates the usefulness of the classification system in terms of clarity, intuitiveness, relevance and
completeness. The usefulness of the system was also demonstrated in a valve replacement project in TAM by conducting
VSM analysis. The VSM case study revealed that the proposed classification system can provide precise classification
of value and waste in both maintenance operation and information flows. The major contributions of this research
include: (1) the development of a classification system that
can facilitate the application of lean philosophy and the
In terms of theoretical implementation, this research highlighted the importance of sector-specific VA and NVA definition
and classification, which has a big impact on successful lean
transformation. Previous studies showed that the identification
of VA and NVA is the most important step of lean and VSM
application. However, it is argued that the current definition of
VA and NVA is limited to physical transformation between
manufacturing processes. Given that lean production is becoming popular and has implemented in many different sectors,
the issue of accurate VA and NVA identification and classification has arisen. In this research, in order to facilitate lean application in TAM projects, first, the value and waste definition and
classification in manufacturing, construction and maintenance
projects were reviewed and analyzed; second, the developed
VA and NVA definition and classification system was improved
and validated in three focus group studies and validated following a series of well-designed criteria. Finally, a VSM analysis
of a selected sample case was used to evaluate the efficiency
of the system. The proposed system has been shown to be an
effective solution to tackle this issue.
The developed VA and NVA definition and classification
framework also have practical implications. It provides a
guideline for project clients to efficiently manage VA and
NVA during the operation of TAM projects. At the time of
this study, few VSM implementations in TAM projects have
been identified. The classification system can help project
planners and clients efficiently identify the NVA and waste in
the process of TAM projects and make sure they are timely
eliminated or reduced.
Buffer time
placed
First-in-first-out
Figure 3. Future state map.
0.5hr
FIFO
Pull flow
Location-based
pull sequence
Added team
2hrs time
buffer very
three valves
INLEC
0.5hr
Operations
0.25hr
Added work
teams
Improvement
Explanation
Merged
activities
FIFO
CT=1.5hrs
PT= 1hr
VA=1hr
Batch= 1
PTV=0
OTSR=59%
0.5hr
Drain
Decontaminant
Operations
2hrs time
buffer every
three valves
CT= 2hrs
PT= 1.5hrs
VA=1.5hrs
Batch= 1
PTV=0
OTSR=78%
Isolate/Disconnect
Pull flow of
the resource
required
Permit manager
Permit Sign On
CT= 2hrs
PT= 2hrs
NVABN=1.75hr
Batch= 1
PTV=0.25hr
OTSR=66%
ISDD
Permit system
Schedule
3
2
CT= 0.5hrs
PT= 0.1hr
NVABN=0.1hr
Batch= 1
PTV=0
OTSR=79%
Fit Blinds
2
FIFO
CT= 0.8hr
PT= 0.8hr
NVABN=0.8hr
Batch= 1
PTV=0
OTSR=60%
Onsite
Transportation
Logistics
Contact Supply
Chain
Valve Co-ordinator
CT= 2.5hrs
PT= 2.5hrs
VA=2.5hrs
Batch= 1
PTV=0
OTSR=61%
Valve Mech Team
Attend Workfront
with Truck
Logistics
Load capacity
of the truck
CT= 1.5hrs
PT= 1.5hrs
VA=1.2hrs
Batch= 1
PTV=0.3hr
OTSR=55%
General Services
Package
0.7hr
Valve Mech Team
FIFO
Valve Team Leader
Schedule
Remove Valve
Co-ordinator
Schedule
CT= 1hr
PT= 1hr
NVABN=0.7hr
Batch= 1
PTV=0.3hr
OTSR=85%
CT= 0.7hrs
PT= 0.3hr
VA=0.3hr
Batch= 1
PTV=0
OTSR=62%
Break Flanges
Valve Mech team/
Ops
S
Turnaround
Superintendent
6
CT= 0.5hr
PT= 0.5hr
NVABN=0.5hr
Batch= 1
PTV=0
OTSR=68%
Logistics
Offsite Transport
PT for each
valve= 15 mins
Daily Progress
Documentation
Logistics
PT for each
valve= 15 mins
Daily Progress
Documentation
Valve Co-ordinator
10.9hrs
per
valve
13hrs
per
valve
Stage 2
74
W. SHOU ET AL.
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL
Table 14. Comparison of the lean metrics for current state and future state.
Criteria
Total amount of cycle time (h)
Total amount of
processing time (h)
VA ratio (%)
Current state
value
20.65
11.85
Future state
value
13
10.9
Changes
6.35
0.85
54.85%
66.97%
12.12%
5.2. Limitation and future research
This research is limited by the particular view point of clients,
and the simplified qualitative criteria for validating the proposed system. Future research should explore the understanding and classification of VA and NVA activities from
different viewpoints, such as operation contractors and
resource vendors. For example, temporary structure erection
can be ‘VA’ activity from scaffolding contractors’ perspective;
off-site material refurbishment should be classified as ‘VA’
not ‘supportive activities for critical resource’ from the viewpoint of surface treatment company. In addition, quantitative
methods should also be adopted for a systematic evaluation
of the effectiveness of the proposed classification system.
75
degree in project management from National University of Singapore,
Singapore, in 2012.
Dr Xiangyu Wang, PhD, is a Professor with the
Department of Construction Management, and
Director with the Australasian Joint Research Centre
for Building Information Modelling, Curtin University.
He is an expert and leading researcher on automation in construction. He received five Linkage grants,
five Discovery grants and one Training Centre grant
from Australia Research Council from 2013 to 2019.
He is on the Board of Directors and country representatives of International Society of Computing in Civil and Building
Engineering (ISCCBE) and International Association of Automation and
Robotics in Construction (IAARC), two most highly regarded academic
societies in Automation in Construction. He received the PhD degree
from Purdue University in 2015.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
Notes on contributors
Dr Wenchi Shou, PhD, is a Lecturer in School of
Computing, Engineering and Mathematics at
Western Sydney University Her research interests are
in value stream mapping, lean construction, Building
Information Modelling, and simulation, exploring the
application of digital lean to improve construction
and operation performance across building, infrastructure, and oil and gas industries. She received a
PhD degree in construction management from
Curtin University in 2018.
Dr Jun Wang, PhD, is a Lecturer in Construction
Management at Deakin University. He received his
PhD in 2018 from Curtin University. During the last 5
years, his research interests focus mainly on leveraging emerging technologies, such as Building
Information Modelling, Internet of Things, Linked
Data and Blockchain, to improve construction and
operation performance across building, infrastructure, and oil and gas industries. As a Chief
Investigator, he has been involved in two Australian Research Council
funded projects. He received the PhD degree in construction management from Curtin University in 2018.
Dr Peng Wu, PhD, is an Associate Professor with the
Department of Construction Management, and an
Associate Director with the Australasian Joint
Research Centre for Building Information Modelling,
Curtin University. His research areas include sustainable construction, lean production and construction,
production and operations management, and life
cycle assessment. In 2016, he received the Discovery
Early Career Research Award from the Australian
Research Council, which is a prestigious award to support excellent basic
and applied research by early career researchers. He received the PhD
This work was supported by the Australian Research Council Linkage
Programme [grant number LP130100451] and was undertaken with the
benefits of a research project sponsored by Woodside Energy Ltd
(Project Name: Lean Maintenance Research to Minimise Shutdown
Turnaround Time).
References
Abdulmalek, F. A., and J. Rajgopal. 2007. “Analyzing the Benefits of Lean
Manufacturing and Value Stream Mapping via Simulation: A Process
Sector Case Study.” International Journal of Production Economics
107 (1):223–236. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2006.09.009.
Ahuja, I. P. S., and J. S. Khamba. 2008. “Total Productive Maintenance:
Literature Review and Directions.” International Journal of Quality &
Reliability
Management
25(7):709–756.
doi:10.1108/02656710
810890890.
Ashayeri, J., A. Teelen, and W. Selenj. 1996. “A Production and
Maintenance Planning Model for the Process Industry.” International
Journal of Production Research 34(12):3311–3326. doi:10.1080/
00207549608905092.
Ballard, G., and G. Howell. 1998. “Shielding Production: Essential Step in
Production Control.” Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management
124(1):11–17.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1998)
124:1(11).
Baluch, N. H., C. S. Abdullah, and S. Mohtar. 2012. “TPM and Lean maintenance-A Critical Review.” Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary
Research in Business (IJCRB) 4(2):850–857.
Banerjee, M., M. Capozzoli, L. McSweeney, and D. Sinha. 1999. “Beyond
Kappa: A Review of Interrater Agreement Measures.” Canadian Journal
of Statistics 27(1):3–23. doi:10.2307/3315487.
Beasley, M. S., and J. G. Jenkins. 2003. “A Primer for Brainstorming Fraud
Risks.” Journal of Accountancy 196(6):32.
Belokar, R. M., V. Kumar, and S. S. Kharb. 2012. “An Application of Value
Stream Mapping in Automotive Industry: A Case Study.” International
Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering 1(2):
152–157.
Bertolini, M., M. Bevilacqua, F. E. Ciarapica, and G. Giacchetta. 2009.
“Development of Risk-Based Inspection and Maintenance Procedures
76
W. SHOU ET AL.
for an Oil Refinery.” Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries
22(2):244–253. doi:10.1016/j.jlp.2009.01.003.
Bevilacqua, M., F. E. Ciarapica, and G. Giacchetta. 2009. “Critical Chain
and Risk Analysis Applied to High-Risk Industry Maintenance: A Case
Study.” International Journal of Project Management 27(4):419–432.
doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.06.006.
Bititci, U. S., F. Ackermann, A. Ates, J. D. Davies, S. Gibb, J. MacBryde, D.
Mackay, C. Maguire, R. Van der Meer, and F. Shafti. 2011. “Managerial
Processes: An Operations Management Perspective towards Dynamic
Capabilities.” Production Planning and Control 22(2):157–173. doi:10.
1080/09537281003738860.
Braglia, M., G. Carmignani, and F. Zammori. 2006. “A New Value Stream
Mapping Approach for Complex Production Systems.” International
Journal of Production Research 44(18–19):3929–3952. doi:10.1080/
00207540600690545.
Chowdary, B. V., K. Ojha, and A. Alexander. 2018. “Improvement of
Refinery Maintenance and Mechanical Services: Application of Lean
Manufacturing Principles.” International Journal of Collaborative
Enterprise 6(1):20–36. doi:10.1504/IJCENT.2018.092082.
Clarke, G., G. Mulryan, and P. Liggan. 2010. “Lean Maintenance–A RiskBased Approach.” Pharmaceutical Engineering 30(5):1–6.
Cohen, J. 1968. “Weighted Kappa: Nominal Scale Agreement Provision
for Scaled Disagreement or Partial Credit.” Psychological Bulletin
70 (4):213. doi:10.1037/h0026256.
Cooper, D. R., and P. S. Schindler. 2006. Business Research Methods. New
York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Davies, C., and R. M. Greenough. 2010. “Measuring the effectiveness of
lean thinking activities within maintenance.” Available at: www.plantmaintenance.com/articles/Lean_Maintenance.pdf.
Dellagi, S., A. Chelbi, and W. Trabelsi. 2017. “Joint Integrated ProductionMaintenance Policy with Production Plan Smoothing through
Production Rate Control.” Journal of Manufacturing Systems 42:
262–270. doi:10.1016/j.jmsy.2016.12.013.
Diekmann, J. E., M. Krewedl, J. Balonick, T. Stewart, and S. Won. 2004.
Application of Lean Manufacturing Principles to Construction. Boulder,
CO: Construction Industry Institute 191.
Duffuaa, S. O., and M. A. Ben Daya. 2004. “Turnaround Maintenance in
Petrochemical Industry: Practices and Suggested Improvements.”
Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering 10(3):184–190.
doi:10.1108/13552510410553235.
El-Diraby, T. E., and K. F. Kashif. 2005. “Distributed Ontology Architecture
for Knowledge Management in Highway Construction.” Journal of
Construction
Engineering
and
Management
131(5):591–603.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2005)131:5(591).
Engineers. 2018. “Process industries division.” Institute of Industrial &
Systems Engineers. Accessed December 11 https://www.iise.org/
details.aspx?id=887.
Ertl, D. 2013. STO Planning Handbook. Houston, TX: InterPlan Systems
Inc.
Fercoq, A., S. Lamouri, and V. Carbone. 2016. “Lean/Green Integration
Focused on Waste Reduction Techniques.” Journal of Cleaner
Production 137:567–578. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.107.
Fisher, E. 2011. “What Practitioners Consider to Be the Skills and
Behaviours of an Effective People Project Manager.” International
Journal of Project Management 29(8):994–1002. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.
2010.09.002.
Gao, S., and S. P. Low. 2014. “The Toyota Way Model: An Alternative
Framework for Lean Construction.” Total Quality Management &
Business Excellence 25(5–6):664–682. doi:10.1080/14783363.2013.
820022.
Ghazali, Z., and M. Halib. 2011. “The Organization of Plant Turnaround
Maintenance in Process-Based Industries: Analytical Framework and
Generic Processes.” Journal of International Business Management &
Research 2(3):30–43
Gouiaa-Mtibaa, A., S. Dellagi, Z. Achour, and W. Erray. 2018. “Integrated
Maintenance-Quality Policy with Rework Process under Improved
Imperfect Preventive Maintenance.” Reliability Engineering & System
Safety 173:1–11. doi:10.1016/j.ress.2017.12.020.
Han, S., S. Lee, and F. Pena-Mora. 2012. “Identification and Quantification
of Non-Value-Adding Effort from Errors and Changes in Design and
Construction Projects.” Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management 138(1):98–109. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000406.
Henrique, D. B., A. F. Rentes, M. Godinho Filho, and K. F. Esposto. 2016.
“A New Value Stream Mapping Approach for Healthcare
Environments.” Production Planning & Control 27(1):24–48. doi:10.
1080/09537287.2015.1051159.
Hines, P., M. Holweg, and N. Rich. 2004. “Learning to Evolve: A Review of
Contemporary Lean Thinking.” International Journal of Operations
&
Production
Management
24(10):994–1011.
doi:10.1108/
01443570410558049.
Holweg, M. 2007. “The Genealogy of Lean Production.” Journal of
Operations Management 25(2):420–437. doi:10.1016/j.jom.2006.04.001.
€o
€k, M., and L. Stehn. 2008. “Applicability of Lean Principles and
Ho
Practices in Industrialized Housing Production.” Construction
Management and Economics 26(10):1091–1100. doi:10.1080/
01446190802422179.
Institute, Project Management. 2000. Project Management Body of
R
Knowledge (PMBOKV
GUIDE). Newtown Square, PA: Project
Management Institute.
Jørgensen, B., and S. Emmitt. 2008. “Lost in Transition: The Transfer of
Lean Manufacturing to Construction.” Engineering, Construction
and
Architectural
Management
15(4):383–398.
doi:10.1108/
09699980810886874.
Kartam, S., G. Ballard, and C. W. Ibbs. 1997. “Construction Models: A New
Integrated Approach.” In Lean Construction, edited by L. Alarcon, 389.
Rotterdam: Balkema.
King, P. L., and J. S. King. 2015. Value Stream Mapping for the Process
Industries: Creating a Roadmap for Lean Transformation. Boca Raton:
Productivity Press.
Koskela, L. 1992. Application of the New Production Philosophy to
Construction. Vol. 72. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
Koskela, L. 1997. “Lean Production in Construction.” In Lean
Construction, edited by L. Alarcon, 1–9. Rotterdam: Balkema.
Koskela, L. J. 2004. “Moving on-beyond Lean Thinking.” Lean
Construction Journal 1(1):24–37.
Krueger, R. A., and M. A. Casey. 2014. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for
Applied Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Lee, S.-H., J. E. Diekmann, A. D. Songer, and H. Brown. 1999. “Identifying
Waste: Applications of Construction Process Analysis.” Paper
presented at the proceedings of the Seventh Annual Conference of
the International Group for Lean Construction.
Lenahan, T. 1999. Turnaround Management. Oxford: ButterworthHeinemann.
Leung, M-Y, J. Yu, and Y. S. Chan. 2014. “Focus Group Study to Explore
Critical Factors of Public Engagement Process for Mega Development
Projects.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
140 (3):04013061. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000815.
Macarulla, M., N. Forcada, M. Casals, M. Gangolells, A. Fuertes, and X.
Roca. 2013. “Standardizing Housing Defects: Classification, Validation,
and Benefits.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
139(8):968–976. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000669.
Mao, X., and X. Zhang. 2008. “Construction Process Reengineering by
Integrating Lean Principles and Computer Simulation Techniques.”
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 134(5):371–381.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2008)134:5(371).
Marodin, G. A., and T. A. Saurin. 2013. “Implementing Lean Production
Systems: Research Areas and Opportunities for Future Studies.”
International Journal of Production Research 51(22):6663–6680. doi:10.
1080/00207543.2013.826831.
Marquez, A. C. 2007. The Maintenance Management Framework: Models
and Methods for Complex Systems Maintenance. London: Springer
Science & Business Media.
McCarthy, I., and M. Menicou. 2002. “A Classification Schema of
Manufacturing Decisions for the GRAI Enterprise Modelling
Technique.” Computers in Industry 47(3):339–355. doi:10.1016/S01663615(02)00002-7.
McManus, H. L. 2005. “Product Development Value Stream Mapping
(PDVSM) Manual Release 1.0.” http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/81908
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL
Melton, T. 2005. “The Benefits of Lean Manufacturing: What Lean
Thinking Has to Offer the Process Industries.” Chemical Engineering
Research and Design 83(6):662–673. doi:10.1205/cherd.04351.
MESA. 1995. Maintenance Engineering Society of Australia Capability
Assurance: A Generic Model of Maintenance. Australia: Maintenance
Engineering Society of Australia (MESA).
Monadelphous. 2015. "Maintenance Optimisation in the Australian LNG
Industry – The Contractor’s Role." Queensland Gas Conference.
Mostafa, S., S.-H. Lee, J. Dumrak, N. Chileshe, and H. Soltan. 2015. “Lean
Thinking for a Maintenance Process.” Production & Manufacturing
Research 3(1):236–272. doi:10.1080/21693277.2015.1074124.
Ohno, T. 1988. Toyota Production System: Beyond Large-Scale Production.
Portland: Productivity Press.
Rother, M., and J. Shook. 2003. Learning to See: Value Stream Mapping to
Add Value and Eliminate Muda. Cambridge, MA: Lean Enterprise
Institute.
Sawhney, R., S. Kannan, and X. Li. 2009. “Developing a Value Stream
Map to Evaluate Breakdown Maintenance Operations.” International
Journal of Industrial and Systems Engineering 4(3):229–240.
doi:10.1504/IJISE.2009.023539.
Schulze, A., P. Schmitt, M. Heinzen, P. Mayrl, D. Heller, and R. Boutellier.
2013. “Exploring the 4I Framework of Organisational Learning in
Product Development: Value Stream Mapping as a Facilitator.”
International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 26(12):
1136–1150. doi:10.1080/0951192X.2011.608724.
Shingo, S., and A. P. Dillon. 1989. A Study of the Toyota Production
System: From an Industrial Engineering Viewpoint. Cambridge, MA: CRC
Press.
Shou, W., J. Wang, X. Wan, and H.-Y. Chong. 2015. “An Application of
Value Stream Mapping for Turnaround Maintenance in Oil and Gas
Industry: Case Study and Lessons Learned.” Paper presented at the
Procs 31st Annual ARCOM Conference, Lincoln, UK, 7–9 September,
2015.
View publication stats
77
Shou, W., J. Wang, P. Wu, X. Wang, and H.-Y. Chong. 2017. “A CrossSector Review on the Use of Value Stream Mapping.” International
Journal of Production Research 55(13):3906–3928. doi:10.1080/
00207543.2017.1311031.
Smith, R., and B. Hawkins. 2004. Lean Maintenance: Reduce Costs, Improve
Quality, and Increase Market Share. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Stone, K. B. 2012. “Four Decades of Lean: A Systematic Literature
Review.” International Journal of Lean Six Sigma 3(2):112–132.
doi:10.1108/20401461211243702.
Th€
urer, M., I. Tomasevic, and M. Stevenson. 2016. “On the Meaning of
‘Waste’: Review and Definition.” Production Planning & Control 28(3):
244–255.
Tommelein, I. D., D. R. Riley, and G. A. Howell. 1999. “Parade Game:
Impact of Work Flow Variability on Trade Performance.” Journal of
Construction
Engineering
and
Management
125(5):304–310.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1999)125:5(304).
Tyagi, S., A. Choudhary, X. Cai, and K. Yang. 2015. “Value Stream
Mapping to Reduce the Lead-Time of a Product Development
Process.” International Journal of Production Economics 160:202–212.
doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.11.002.
U Yile, L., X. XueHang, and Z. Lei. 2008. “Lean Maintenance Framework
and Its Application in Clutch Maintenance.” Paper presented at the
Information Management, Innovation Management and Industrial
Engineering, 2008. ICIII’08, Taipei.
Vaughn, S., J. S. Schum, and J. Sinagub. 1996. Focus Group Interviews in
Education and Psychology. Los Angeles, CA; London: Sage.
Viana, D. D., C. T., Formos, and B. T. Kalsaas. 2012. “Waste in
Construction: A Systematic Literature Review on Empirical Studies.”
Paper presented at the annual conference of international group of
lean construction.
Womack, J. P., and D. T. Jones. 1996. Lean Thinking: Banish Waste and
Create Wealth in Your Corporation. New York: Simon and Schuster.