2017 Maintenance Performance Automotive Industry PDF

SUSTAINABLE MAINTENANCE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM
FOR AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
EMELIA SARI
A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the

requirements for the award of the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy (Mechanical Engineering)
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
MAY 2017
iii
To my beloved husband, mother, father, and two wonderful children.

iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. I am thankful to
Allah for granting me persistence and strength to complete this thesis.
I would like to express my sincere appreciation and deep gratitude to my

supervisors, Dr. Azanizawati Bt Ma’aram and Professor Dr. Awaluddin bin
Mohamed Shaharoun, for their transferred knowledge, encouragement, advice, and
support. With their professional assistance and guidance, I could manage to get this
thesis completed.
This thesis would not have been also possible without the support from my
experts and respondents who contributed a lot during discussion, interview, and
survey, especially Prof. Dr. I.S. Jawahir of University of Kentucky; Assoc. Prof.
Aditya Parida of Lulea University of Technology; En. Zamri Isa, BSc, MBA of
Delloyd Industries (M) Sdn Bhd, Malaysia; the team from SIRIM’s Total Productive
Maintenance (TPM) certification and recognition scheme; Proton; and Perodua.
I am really thankful to Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) for funding my

PhD research through International Doctoral Fellowship (IDF) Program. I also wish
to express my gratitude to all UTM staffs for their assistance.
I owe my deepest gratitude to my lovely husband, H. Ridha Satria, ST. who

has made available his support in a number of ways, my beloved parents, H. Sy. Dt.
Bdr. Nan Hitam, Hj. Evi Susiany, and Hj. Yusnar who sincerely pray for my success
and give the best support throughout this study. To my wonderful heroes, M. Afief
Muzhaffar and M. Fatih Ghifary, thank you darlings for supporting your Ummi. I
v
wish to thank my entire family for providing the constant support and understanding.
Lani, Bonny, Nana, Rosa, etek Tira, and uni Dr. Rahmi and family.
I am heartily thankful to both my best friends in BATC of UTMKL, uni Elita

Amrina and Azila Raja Mamat for sharing of PhD work, family, and our live. To my
colleagues in UTMKL, En Zarak Shaifuddin bin Zamrah who gets my respondents
available, mba Myrna, for encouraging me throughout the years.
Last but not least, my sincere grateful to the group called as “4 Sekawan”,
pak Yusuf and family, pak Irfan and family, and pak Farchan and family, for giving
the continued support and bringing cheer to our live in Bintulu.
vi
ABSTRACT
This study is motivated to embed sustainability issues for maintenance

management implementation in the automotive industry as one of the capital
intensive industries. Maintenance objectives at the operational level should be
aligned with corporate sustainability goals by defining key performance indicators at
every level in a company. However, very few studies have attempted to link
sustainability initiatives with maintenance performance and there is no standard set
of Sustainable Maintenance Performance (SMP) measures. This research aims to
bridge the gap by developing a balanced hierarchical SMP measurement framework.
This framework consists of 78 indicators where 14 indicators were identified to be at
the corporate level, 21 indicators at the tactical level, and 43 indicators at the
functional level, respectively. A survey was conducted with 200 sent questionnaires,
101 were usable leading to a response rate of 50.5%. Statistical analyses were
applied in order to determine reliability and validity requirements from the survey.
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was conducted to determine the underlying
structure among the SMP indicators and to obtain the significant indicators. Nine
perspectives have been identified with 71 indicators as compared to the initial
framework which has 8 perspectives with 78 indicators. The Partial Least Squares -
Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) as a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)
was conducted in order to validate the results of EFA. The measurement and
structural evaluation results verified the SMP indicators’ reliability and validity.
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was applied in identifying the cause and effect
relationship amongst the SMP measures through a hierarchical structure.
Furthermore, AHP through pairwise comparison was also assigned to determine the
critical measures by defining the relative important weights of each measure. The
AHP results indicated that environmental is the most important factor in evaluating
SMP for Malaysian automotive companies, followed by economic and social,
respectively. Moreover, AHP also recommended the top five important indicators in
evaluating SMP, i.e. total of lubricants consumption, total of greenhouse gas
emissions, maintenance program achievement, stakeholder complaints, training
hours per employee, and employee complaints. In the end, this research has also
established a measurement guideline for measuring SMP which consists of three
main procedures. A Microsoft Excel-based tool for SMP measurement was also
developed to assist organizational efforts and reduce time. The results of this study
are expected to lead to better understanding and provide new insight in developing a
SMP measurement system which benefits both researchers and practitioners.
Finally, this work is of most interest to the public and private sectors which need to
incorporate sustainability issues into their corporate objectives and to assess its
implementation. Future researchers are suggested to build a SMP measurement
system through a real case study.
vii
ABSTRAK
Kajian ini adalah bermotivasi untuk menerapkan isu kemampanan untuk

perlaksanaan pengurusan penyelenggaraan dalam industri automotif sebagai salah
satu industri intensif modal. Objektif penyelenggaraan di peringkat operasi
hendaklah selaras dengan strategi perniagaan di peringkat korporat dengan
mengenalpasti petunjuk prestasi utama di setiap peringkat. Namun, terlalu sedikit
kajian yang cuba mengaitkan inisiatif kemampanan dengan prestasi penyelenggaraan
dan tiada set standard petunjuk prestasi penyelenggaraan berterusan (SMP). Kajian
ini bertujuan untuk merapatkan jurang dengan membangunkan rangka kerja
pengukuran hirarki SMP seimbang. Rangka kerja ini terdiri daripada 78 petunjuk
prestasi, 14 petunjuk di peringkat korporat, 21 petunjuk di peringkat taktikal, dan 43
petunjuk di peringkat operasi. Satu kaji selidik telah dijalankan dengan 200 borang
soalselidik yang telah diedarkan, 101 digunapakai dengan kadar respon 50.5%.
Analisis statistik telah digunakan untuk menentukan keperluan kebolehpercayaan
dan kesahihan daripada kaji selidik tersebut. Analisis Penerokaan Faktor (EFA)
telah dijalankan untuk menentukan struktur asas kepada petunjuk SMP dan
mendapatkan petunjuk yang penting. Sembilan perspektif dengan 71 petunjuk telah
dikenal pasti berbanding dengan SMP permulaan iaitu 8 perspektif dengan 78
penunjuk. Kuasa-Paling Sedikit Separa – Pemodelan Persamaan Struktur (PLS-
SEM) selaku analisis pengesahan faktor telah dijalankan bagi mengesahkan
keputusan EFA. Pengukuran dan penilaian struktur telah mengesahkan
kebolehpercayaan dan kesahihan petunjuk SMP. Seterusnya, Proses Hierarki
Analisis (AHP) telah digunakan untuk mengenal pasti perhubungan sebab-akibat
petunjuk SMP. Selain itu, AHP melalui perbandingan berpasangan juga telah
digunakan untuk menentukan petunjuk kritikal dengan menentukan wajaran
kepentingan relatif bagi setiap petunjuk. Keputusan AHP menunjukkan bahawa
alam sekitar adalah faktor yang paling penting dalam penilaian SMP bagi syarikat
automotif di Malaysia, diikuti dengan faktor ekonomi dan faktor sosial. Selain itu,
AHP juga mencadangkan lima petunjuk yang penting dalam penilaian SMP, iaitu
jumlah penggunaan pelincir, jumlah pelepasan gas rumah hijau, pencapaian program
penyelenggaraan, aduan pihak berkepentingan, jumlah jam latihan bagi setiap
pekerja, dan aduan pekerja. Akhirnya, kajian ini mencadangkan satu garis panduan
untuk mengukur SMP yang terdiri daripada tiga prosedur utama. Kajian ini juga
membangunkan alat pengukuran SMP menggunakan Microsoft Excel untuk
membantu organisasi dan menjimatkan masa. Keputusan kajian ini dijangka akan
membawa kepada pemahaman yang lebih baik dan memberikan pengetahuan baru
dalam membangunkan sistem pengukuran SMP yang bermanfaat kepada penyelidik
dan pengamal. Akhirnya, kajian ini akan menarik minat sektor awam dan swasta
yang memerlukan penerapan isu kemampanan dalam objektif korporat mereka dan
menilai pelaksanaannya. Penyelidik akan datang dicadangkan untuk membina
sebuah sistem pengukuran SMP melalui kajian kes sebenar.
viii
TABLE OF CONTENT
CHAPTER TITLE PAGE

DECLARATION ii
DEDICATION iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv
ABSTRACT vi
ABSTRAK vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS viii
LIST OF TABLES xiii
LIST OF FIGURES xvii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS xxi
LIST OF APPENDICES xxiii
1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background of Research 1
1.2 Problem Statement 6
1.3 Research Questions 7
1.4 Research Objectives 7
1.5 Research Scopes 8
1.6 Significance of the Research 8
1.7 Outline of the Thesis 10
2 LITERATURE REVIEW 12
2.1 Introduction 12
2.2 Overview of Malaysian automotive industry 12
2.3 Automotive Industry and Sustainability 14
ix
2.4 Maintenance Objectives in Manufacturing

Companies 16
2.5 Importance of Maintenance Performance
Measurement System in Manufacturing
Companies 18
2.6 Evolution of Maintenance Performance
Measurement Systems in Manufacturing
Companies 21
2.7 Sustainable Manufacturing and Maintenance
Management 22
2.8 Review on Previous Sustainable Maintenance
Performance Measurement Frameworks in
Manufacturing Companies 28
2.9 Reviews on Existing Hierarchy of Sustainable
Maintenance Performance Measurement
Frameworks in Manufacturing Companies 46
2.10 Preliminary Sustainable Maintenance Performance
Measurement Framework for Automotive
Companies 48
2.11 Overview of Exploratory Factor Analysis 53
2.12 Overview of Partial Least Squares – Structural
Equation Modeling 54
2.13 Overview of Analytic Hierarchy Process 57
2.14 Summary 59
3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 61
3.1 Introduction 61
3.2 Overall Structure of Research Methodology 61
3.3 Survey Methodology 63
3.3.1 Questionnaire Development 64
3.3.2 Expert Validation 66
3.3.3 Pilot Study 70
3.3.4 Population and Sampling 71
x
3.3.5 Data Collection 72

3.3.6 Reliability and Validity 72
3.3.7 Exploratory Factor Analysis 74
3.3.8 Partial Least Squares – Structural Equation
Modeling 77
3.4 Developing Sustainable Maintenance Performance
Measurement Guideline 81
3.4.1 Developing Analytic Hierarchy Process
Questionnaire 81
3.4.2 Conducting Analytic Hierarchy Process
Survey 82
3.4.3 Analytic Hierarchy Process Procedures 84
3.5 Verifying the Sustainable Maintenance Objectives 87
3.6 Developing Sustainable Maintenance Performance
Measurement Tool 88
3.6.1 Build Sustainable Maintenance Performance
Measurement Tool 89
3.6.2 Tool Evaluation 91
3.7 Summary 92
4 SURVEY RESULTS AND ANALYSIS 94

4.1 Introduction 94
4.2 General Descriptive Statistic of Respondents 94
4.3 Results of Sustainable Maintenance Management
Systems Initiatives 101
4.4 Reliability Test 102
4.5 Exploratory Factor Analysis 103
4.5.1 Statistical Requirement Results (Importance
Level) 103
4.5.2 Rotated Factor Matrix Results (Importance
Level) 104
4.5.3 Statistical Requirement Results
(Applicability Level) 106
xi
4.5.4 Rotated Factor Matrix Results (Applicability

Level) 108
4.6 Partial Least Squares – Structural Equation
Modeling 111
4.6.1 Measurement Model Evaluation (Importance
Level) 113
4.6.2 Structural Model Evaluation (Importance
Level) 119
4.6.3 Measurement Model Evaluation
(Applicability Level) 120
4.6.4 Structural Model Evaluation (Applicability
Level) 126
4.7 Summary 136
5 DEVELOPMENT OF MEASUREMENT
GUIDELINE 138
5.1 Introduction 138
5.2 Constructing the Hierarchical Structure 138
5.2.1 Defining the Objective and the Criteria 139
5.2.2 Establishing a Hierarchical Structure 140
5.3 Determining the Weight of SMP Criteria Using
AHP Methodology 140
5.3.1 Conducting the Pairwise Comparison of the
Criteria 144
5.3.2 Constructing the Pairwise Comparison
Matrix 145
5.3.3 Calculating Consistency Ratio 145
5.3.4 Computing the Relative Importance Weight
and Ranking the Critical Indicators 147
5.4 The Analysis of AHP Results 151
5.5 Global Weight with Respect to Evaluating
Sustainable Maintenance Performance 166
5.6 Relationships among Sustainable Maintenance
xii
Objectives 168
5.7 Sustainable Maintenance Performance
Measurement 170
5.7.1 Rating the Score of Sustainable Maintenance
Performance Indicators 170
5.7.2 Calculating the Performance Score of
Sustainable Maintenance Practices 172
5.7.3 Classifying the Performance level 175
5.8 Tool Evaluation 178
5.9 Summary 179
6 DISCUSSION 180
6.1. Introduction 180
6.2 The Findings in Developing the Conceptual
Framework 180
6.3 The Findings in Validating the Preliminary
Sustainable Maintenance Performance
Measurement Framework 183
6.4 The Findings in Developing Measurement
Guideline 187
6.5 Contribution of Research 188
7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

FOR FURTHER RESEARCH 191
7.1. Conclusion of Research 191
7.2 Limitation of Study 194
7.3 Recommendations for Future Research 194
REFERENCES 196
Appendices A – D 216 - 307
xiii
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE NO. TITLE PAGE

2.1 Previous studies in Malaysian automotive industry 14
2.2 Environmental aspects and impacts of the automotive
industry (Nunes and Bennett, 2010) 15
2.3 Objectives of maintenance functions 17
2.4 Drivers for Implementing MPM System 20
2.5 Characteristics of traditional and modern PMS (Gomes
et al., 2006; Gomes et al., 2011) 21
2.6 The impact of poor maintenance management quality
on the environment (Raouf, 2009) 26
2.7 Leading and lagging maintenance performance
indicators (Muchiri et al., 2011) 30
2.8 Proposed maintenance performance indicators for an
electricity transmission and distribution company
(Tsang et al., 1999) 32
2.9 Maintenance performance indicators for monitoring
maintenance quality and environmental performance
(Raouf, 2009) 41
2.10 Evaluation criteria of maintenance management audit
(Hale et al., 1998) 42
2.11 Summary of SMP perspectives in manufacturing
companies 44
2.12 Summary of maintenance management framework
hierarchies in manufacturing companies 47
xiv
2.13 List of preliminary SMP measures for automotive

companies 50
2.14 Summary of previous studies applying STV ratio > 2:1 54
2.15 Summary of previous studies conducting EFA and
PLS-SEM 55
2.16 The benefits of AHP method 57
2.17 Summary of previous research using AHP approach 58
3.1 Summary of previous research using five-point Likert
scale 65
3.2 The summary of comments and suggestions from the
experts 67
3.3 The background of respondent 70
3.4 The minimum sample size in factor analysis and its
application in this research 74
3.5 The background of the experts 83
3.6 Scale of measurement in pair-wise comparisons (Saaty,
2008) 85
3.7 CR value for different matrix sizes (Saaty and
Sodenkamp, 2010) 86
3.8 The CR calculation steps (Saaty, 2008) 87
3.9 Random index (Saaty and Sodenkamp, 2010) 87
3.10 The background of the experts 88
3.11 Performance level and signaling system of SMP (Yang
et al., 2009) 90
3.12 The background of the respondents 91
3.13 Summary of methodology and analytical tool 93
4.1 Motivations in implementing SMM 101
4.2 Results of internal consistency analysis (importance
level) 102
4.3 Results of internal consistency analysis (applicability
level) 103
4.4 The summary of EFA processes and results
(importance level) 107
xv
4.5 The summary of EFA processes and results

(applicability level) 110
4.6 The comparison of SMPM framework 111
4.7 Outer loadings of each indicator 113
4.8 Convergent validity and internal consistency reliability
of each construct 116
4.9 Discriminant validity (Fornell-Larcker criterion) 117
4.10 Discriminant validity (cross-loadings) 118
4.11 Significance testing results of the structural model path
coefficients 119
4.12 Coefficient of determination value 120
4.13 Outer loadings of each indicator 121
4.14 Convergent validity and internal consistency reliability
of each construct 123
4.15 Discriminant validity (Fornell-Larcker criterion) 124
4.16 Discriminant validity (cross loadings) 125
4.17 Significance testing results of the structural model path
coefficients 126
4.18 Coefficient of determination value 127
4.19 SMPM framework 128
4.20 Operational Definition of SMP Indicators with Respect
to Cost Effectiveness Perspective 129
to Quality Perspective 130
to Productivity Perspective 131
to Resource Efficiency Perspective 132
to Pollution and Waste Perspective 133
to Learning and Growth Perspective 134
xvi

to Health and Safety Perspective 134
to Employee Satisfaction Perspective 136
to Stakeholder Satisfaction Perspective 136
5.1 The pairwise comparison of the SMP factors 144
5.2 Comments on the relationships of sustainable
maintenance objectives 168
5.3 Performance score of the company 171
5.4 Performance of sustainable maintenance perspectives 176
5.5 Performance of sustainable maintenance factors 177
5.6 Overall performance of sustainable maintenance
practices 177
5.7 Feedback on Microsoft Excel-based tool 178
5.8 General comments on Microsoft Excel-based tool 178
7.1 Summary of research achievements 193
xvii
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE NO. TITLE PAGE

2.1 TIV trend from 2009 to 2015 (MAA, 2016) 13
2.2 Contribution of maintenance management practices in
creating competitive advantages (Alsyouf, 2009) 19
2.3 The paradigm shift in manufacturing companies
(O’Brien, 2012) 23
2.4 The evolution of environmental strategy (Fiksel, 2009) 24
2.5 The evolution of sustainable manufacturing (Jawahir,
2016) 24
2.6 Framework of maintenance responsibility related to
sustainabilityperformance of an industrial asset
(Liyanage et al., 2009) 25
2.7 Asset maintenance management for sustainable
performance (Ratnayake, 2013) 25
2.8 MPM framework (Kutucuoglu et al., 2001) 32
2.9 OMPM concept (Liyanage and Kumar, 2003) 33
2.10 Basis for assessment of gains and losses due to
maintenance upon sustainability perspectives
(Liyanage et al., 2009) 34
2.11 The maintenance scorecard model (Mather, 2005) 35
2.12 Impact of maintenance on business performance
(Alsyouf, 2006) 36
2.13 Multi-criteria hierarchical framework for MPM
(Parida, 2012) 37
2.14 Maintenance performance indicators (Raouf, 2004) 38
xviii
2.15 Framework for world-class maintenance system

(Kodali et al., 2009). 39
2.16 The criteria for constructing maintenance execution
plan (Tang et al., 2015) 39
2.17 Sustainable condition-based maintenance procedure
(Sénéchal, 2017) 40
2.18 Safety performance indicators (Pintelon and Muchiri,
2009) 43
2.19 Green maintenance requirements (Ajukumar and
Ghandi, 2013) 44
2.20 Proposed perspectives of SMP for manufacturing
companies 46
2.21 Proposed SMPM hierarchy level 47
2.22 Proposed sustainable maintenance objectives 49
3.1 The overall structure of research methodology 62
3.2 The stages of EFA (Hair et al., 2010) 75
3.3 Conceptual representation of third-order Hierarchical
Component Model (HCM) for SMPM framework 78
3.4 The evaluation processes for a reflective, third-order
HCM (Hair et al., 2014) 79
3.5 The procedure for AHP method (Saaty and
Sodenkamp, 2010) 84
3.6 The hierarchical structure of decision problem 85
3.7 Flowchart of Microsoft Excel development process 89
4.1 The percentage of full-time employees 95
4.2 The percentage of full-time maintenance employees 95
4.3 The years of involved in automotive industry 96
4.4 Breakdown of companieswith respect to ownership 96
4.5 The types of products 97
4.6 Standardization system adopted 98
4.7 Level of importance of maintenance management
issues 99
xix
4.8 Number of years of implementing maintenance

management systems 99
4.9 Types of maintenance strategies applied 99
4.10 Awareness of sustainable maintenance systems concept 100
4.11 Level of importance of sustainable maintenance
management issues 100
4.12 Number of years of implementing SMM systems 101
4.13 Hierarchical component model of SMPM Framework 112
5.1 The stages for development of SMPM guideline 139
5.2 Hierarchical structure of SMPM 141
5.3 The local and global relative weights of SMP measures 148
5.4 Relative importance weights of SMP factors 151
5.5 Relative importance weights of SMP perspectives on
economic factor 152
environmental factor 153
social factor 153
5.8 Relative importance weights of SMP indicators on cost
effectiveness perspective 154
5.9 Relative importance weights of SMP indicators on
maintenance budget indicator 155
preventive maintenance cost indicator 155
corrective maintenance cost indicator 156
overall department effectiveness indicator 157
maintenance efficiency indicator 157
preventive maintenance task indicator 158
xx

corrective maintenance task indicator 159
resources saving indicator 159
5.17 Relative importance weights of SMP indicators on total
of spare parts used indicator 160
5.18 Relative importance weights of SMP indicators on total
of energy consumption indicator 161
environmental illegal cases indicator 162
water pollution indicator 162
5.21 Relative importance weights of SMP indicators on land
contamination indicator 163
learning and growth perspective 164
health and safety perspective 164
recordable injury rate indicator 165
physical working environment indicator 166
5.26 The global weight of SMP indicators 167
5.27 Sustainable maintenance objectives 169
5.28 Performance score of SMP calculation flow chart 173
5.29 Visual representation - performance of sustainable
maintenance perspectives 176
5.30 Visual representation – overall sustainable maintenance
practices and sustainable maintenance factors 177
xxi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AASA - The association of academies of sciences in Asia

AHCSM - Analytic hierarchy constant sum method
AHP - Analytic hierarchy process
AVE - Average variance extracted
BSC - Balanced scorecard
CFA - Confirmatory factor analysis
CMMS - Computerized maintenance management system
CR - Consistency ratio
CV - Commercial vehicles
EFA - Exploratory factor analysis
ERV - Equipment replacement value
HCM - Hierarchical component model
KMO - Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy
MAA - Malaysian automotive association
MAI - Malaysia automotive institute
MCDM - Multi-criteria decision making
MITI - Malaysian ministry of international and trade industry
MPM - Maintenance performance measurement
MTBF - Mean time between failures
MTTR - Mean time to repair
NAP - National automotive policy
OEE - Overall equipment effectiveness
OMPM - Operation and maintenance performance management
PCA - Principal components analysis
PERODUA - Perusahaan otomobil kedua Sdn. Bhd.
PLS-SEM - Partial least squares - structural equation modeling
PMS - Performance measurement system
xxii
PPE - Personal protective equipment

PROTON - Perusahaan otomobil nasional Bhd.
PV - Passenger vehicles
PVAMD - Proton vendors association member directory
ROI - Return on investment
SEM - Structural equation modeling
SME - Small medium enterprise
SMM - Sustainable maintenance management
SMP - Sustainable maintenance performance
SMPM - Sustainable maintenance performance measurement
SMRP - The society for maintenance and reliability professionals
STV - Subjects to variables
TIV - Total industry volume
TOEE - Total overall equipment effectiveness
TPM - Total productive maintenance
WIP - Work in progress
QFD - Quality function deployment
xxiii
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX TITLE PAGE

A1 List of experts 216
A2 Example letter to expert 218
A3 Evaluation form of expert 219
A4 Survey questionnaire 220
A5 Example letter for pilot survey 227
A6 Example letter for full survey 228
A7 AHP questionnaire 229
A8 Example letter for AHP survey 238
A9 Relationship of sustainable maintenance objectives 239
questionnaire
A10 Example letter for sustainable maintenance 243
objectives
A11 Evaluation tool questionnaire 244
A12 Example letter for evaluation tool 246
B1 Background of respondents 247
B2 Results of motivation in implementing sustainable 252
maintenance management initiatives
B3 Reliability test of importance level 253
B4 Reliability test of applicability level 261
B5 Results of EFA for importance level 269
B6 Results of EFA for applicability level 294
C List of publication and citation 306
D Basic definition 307
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of Research
The use of advanced technology in the manufacturing companies has made

maintenance management function even more critical in achieving the corporate
objectives (Zuashkiani et al., 2011). In the early 1900s, maintenance was regarded
as a necessary evil that should be minimized as much as possible (Garg and
Deshmukh, 2006; Sharma et al., 2011). Rather than being regarded as a competitive
resource, it was considered as a cost-driving necessity (Salonen and Deleryd, 2011).
Companies never look at maintenance as a vital investment which must be done in
order to increase the process reliability to become a world-class manufacturing
company (Ahuja and Kumar, 2009). This view was caused by the company’s failure
to identify the impact (direct and indirect) of maintenance function on the objectives
of company or as a source of profit (Jonsson, 1997; Aoudia et al., 2008).
However, in the twentieth century the maintenance function has grown to be

considered as a crucial part of business success (Parida and Kumar, 2006). It creates
competitive advantages which give the company the ability to compete with others.
Moreover, maintenance management system has crucial effects on all aspects of
company’s performance including cost, environmental, and safety.
Previous studies revealed that maintenance management has a positive

relationship with enhancement of company’s competitiveness (Madu, 2000; Pintelon
et al., 2006). Chelsom et al. (2005) stated that maintenance cost is a crucial factor in
2
manufacturing company’s profitability because it may contribute between 2 to 10

percent of the business’s profit. Similarly, the research in a Swedish paper mill
proved maintenance as a profit generating function (Alsyouf, 2007). Improving the
equipment availability by 1 percent enables profit to grow by 2 to 4 percent in
several industrial sectors (Gebauer et al., 2008). In addition, proper maintenance
execution can assist the company to enhance productivity with high-quality level
(Rotab Khan and Darrab, 2010). Moreover, Chelsom et al. (2005) stated that in the
current manufacturing business practices (automation, flexible manufacturing
systems, lean manufacturing and just in time operation), maintenance needs to be
integrated with other business functions for ensuring machine reliability in order to
achieve efficient production and high-quality products.
A number of studies also revealed that there are effects of maintenance

management systems to the environmental and safety aspects. Tang et al., (2015)
have conducted maintenance research in the oil and gas sector and they stated that
equipment failures during oil and gas exploration and development may lead to
disasters and, in turns, have negative impacts on human safety and environmental
pollution. However, on the other hand, effective maintenance management systems
can lead to energy saving, thus reducing environmental pollution (Al-Ghanim, 2003).
Pintelon and Muchiri (2009) argued that maintenance management systems

have critical effects on plant safety. The correct maintenance implementation can
increase safety level with enhancing effective communication between maintenance
workers and plant operators (Holmgren, 2005). In contrast, Hale et al. (1998)
revealed that the lack of maintenance management contributed to 40% of major
accidents, where 80% of those occurred during the maintenance executions and 20%
in routine operations.
The value added created by maintenance management needs to be planned,

controlled, and improved using a proper Maintenance Performance Measurement
(MPM) framework (Simões et al., 2011). A formal MPM framework allows the
company to identify problems and take appropriate and corrective actions. Several
researchers have developed MPM frameworks which focused more on traditional
3
maintenance performance measures (financial-based) and concentrated at the

operational or functional level only. Thus the impact of maintenance management in
achieving overall corporate objectives was overlooked (Parida, 2006). Upon these
shortcomings, this research focused on a balanced and integrated MPM framework,
which considers financial and non-financial measures and at the same time ensuring
the alignment between maintenance objective and corporate objectives.
This alignment will enable corporate objectives cascaded down on the entire
organization levels by defining key performance indicators at each level including
operational or functional level (Mather, 2005). Therefore, maintenance workforce at
the functional level will be enabled to carry out their roles in a way that will
contribute significantly to the business objectives and able to understand how they
can achieve these objectives. However, there is a lack of research that provides
sufficient answers on how maintenance management can contribute in achieving
business objectives (Parida, 2006).
The Balanced Scorecard (BSC) is a popular approach for measuring

performance in the manufacturing and service companies. Moreover, Parida (2012)
stated that different asset performance assessment frameworks need to be developed
in line with the BSC in order to ensure the alignment between maintenance
executions at the functional level and business objectives at the corporate level in a
balanced manner.
The BSC offers an advantage which enables the employee to be part of the
company performance enhancement process since it contains the business strategies
of the entire organization levels. Therefore, business strategies will be able to be
translated into routine maintenance executions. The BSC has been adapted by
previous researchers in developing performance measurement frameworks including
in the MPM frameworks, such as Tsang (1998), Tsang et al. (1999), Kutucuoglu et
al. (2001), Liyanage and Kumar (2003), Mather (2005), Alsyouf (2006), Parida and
Chattopadhy (2007), Liyanage et al. (2009), and Parida (2012).
4
Alsyouf (2006) stated that the scarcity of natural resources and the market
sentiment about environmental problems have caused sustainability to become an
important issue among researchers and practitioners. In addition, Daily and Huang
(2001); Despeisse et al., (2013) argued that stakeholder’s pressure, stricter national
regulation, and international environmental standards are the external drivers which
forced companies to take into account the sustainability issues in their business’s
strategy. Similarly, Keijzers (2002) stated that it was due to the regulation that
initially pushes the company to consider sustainability issues in order to reduce
wastes and emissions. However, in the next phase, the sustainable business strategy
will lead the company to become eco-efficiency and resource productivity.
Liyanage (2007) suggested that it is essential to integrate sustainability issues

into all support business functions, including maintenance management of the assets
which is important but assumed having less contribution in improving company
sustainability. Poor quality of maintenance management execution will lead to
negative impacts on the environment, safety, as well as economic (Aoudia et al.,
2008; Raouf, 2009). In response to these issues, maintenance management needs
Sustainable Maintenance Performance Measurement (SMPM) system where the
three factors of sustainability (economic, environmental, and social) will all be
considered, and no longer focus solely on economic factor (Ratnayake and Markeset,
2012). However, only a few previous researchers have regarded sustainability issues
in their research and clarified how to integrate these issues into a MPM system.
One of the most important and strategic industry sectors in the world is the
automotive industry (Lettice et al., 2010). According to Habidin and Yusof (2013),
automotive manufacturing companies are one of the main drivers for the
development of advanced technology and continuous improvement activities. They
reflect the technology capability of the nation. Furthermore, the automotive industry
will surely guarantee the existence of inter-industry linkage since they bring together
various components produced by their suppliers.
According to Alsyouf (2006), sustainable maintenance is a crucial

management issue for high-capital and high-risk industries, such as automotive
5
industry. The automotive industry has contributed to economic and social

development around the world. However, this industry and its supply chain have
caused global environmental problems (Orsato and Wells, 2007; Nunes and Bennett,
2010). Hence, the commitments of stakeholder and supplier of this industry to
consider sustainability issues in their business strategies are very crucial for
sustainability around the world (González et al., 2008).
The Malaysian automotive industry is one of the important and strategic

industry sectors. This industry has become the third largest amongst ASEAN
countries in terms of both total number of production and sales where 666,674 units
were manufactured in 2015 (MAA, 2016). It has contributed to the GDP by 3.2%
and 550,000 workforces were employed in this sector by 2012. On 20 January 2014,
the Malaysian Ministry of International and Trade Industry (MITI) has announced
their estimation that this industry would contribute as high as 10% to the GDP and
provide employment opportunities of 150,000 by 2020 (MITI, 2014).
According to the Association of Academies of Sciences in Asia (AASA)

(2011), Malaysia is one of the top 24 highest energy consumers in Asia causing to be
Malaysia among the top 20 carbon dioxide emission producer. Malaysian
automotive industry generated of 5.69% scheduled waste by 2010 which is leading
this industry as the top five scheduled waste producer (Department of Environment
Malaysia, 2010).
MITI (2014) has declared the objectives of newest National Automotive

Policy (NAP). The objectives are:
“to promote a competitive and sustainable domestic automotive industry
including the national automotive companies; promote increase in value-added
activities in a sustainable manner”.
In order to respond to these issues, Malaysian automotive companies need to

take into account sustainability issue in their business strategy and assess its
implementation using a balanced and integrated SMPM system.
6
1.2 Problem Statement
Today, maintenance management is considered as a crucial support function

in the success of businesses. The automotive companies need to develop a balanced
and integrated MPM framework for measuring the value-added created by
maintenance management process. In fact, some of the previous researchers have
developed MPM frameworks which were more concentrated on traditional
maintenance performance measures (financial view point).
Recently, automotive industry as a capital-intensive manufacturing

companies have been exerted to reduce negative impacts on the environment and at
the same time need to realize their contribution to economic and social development.
Therefore, it is crucial to embed sustainability issues into maintenance management
of the assets which is a significant factor in achieving the status of a sustainable
company (Kaur et al., 2012). Although literature on sustainability is rapidly
growing, there are limited studies that have been conducted on how to incorporate
sustainability issues into a MPM system in a balanced manner. Several previous
studies were limited and focused on specific factors such as economic,
environmental or social only rather than integrating all relevant factors.
The other main issue in developing MPM framework is the alignment

between maintenance objectives at the operational level and overall business
objectives at the corporate level. It is important to ensure this alignment by defining
the indicators at each level. The clear alignment allows practitioners to translate
business strategies into maintenance daily activities and at the same time enables
maintenance workforces at the operational level to improve their value created
aligned to corporate objectives. Many researchers and practitioners have been
developing MPM frameworks, mostly at the operational level or the functional level
only, without considering its effect in achieving corporate objectives that related to
maintenance management.
Hence, there is a need to assess the application of sustainable maintenance

management using a balanced and integrated SMPM framework, which considers all
7
relevant factors of sustainability, and at the same time ensures the alignment between
corporate objectives and maintenance objectives. It is strongly believed that the
findings from this study can help manufacturing companies, especially automotive
companies to become more competitive and more sustainable in the global
environment.
1.3 Research Questions
The research questions are as follows:

i. How to embed sustainability issues into a Maintenance Performance
Measurement (MPM) framework?
ii. What are the Sustainable Maintenance Performance (SMP) measures
which can be applied for automotive companies?
iii. How does maintenance management contribute to a company's
competitive strategies?
iv. What measures of Sustainable Maintenance Performance (SMP) that will
contribute significantly to business strategies that related to maintenance
management?
v. How the automotive companies measure the level of implementation of
sustainable maintenance?
1.4 Research Objectives
The research objectives are as follows:

i. To develop a set of balanced and integrated Sustainable Maintenance
Performance (SMP) measures (factors, perspectives, and indicators) for
automotive companies.
ii. To develop a Sustainable Maintenance Performance Measurement
(SMPM) framework that allows the linking for strategy to operational or
functional level.
8
iii. To identify the critical measures in achieving company objectives that

related to maintenance management.
iv. To develop a measurement system with a guideline of Sustainable
Maintenance Performance Measurement (SMPM) for automotive
companies.
1.5 Research Scopes
The scopes of this study are limited to the following:

i. The sector of research is confined to automotive companies. The research
questionnaires were applied to Malaysian automotive companies.
ii. The research was focused on sustainability issue in maintenance
management.
1.6 Significance of the Research
Murthy et al. (2002) highlighted that maintenance management of assets and

facilities are amongst the vital function for business’s survival and success, and
hence it must be strategically managed. Maintenance management needs an
appropriate MPM framework in order to plan, control, and improve the outcome of
the maintenance process (Parida, 2006). The MPM frameworks have been
developed by previous researchers. Unfortunately, they tended to focus on financial
measures and concentrate at either operational level or functional level only. The
effect of the maintenance management performance on the business strategies was
rarely studied.
Furthermore, sustainability issue has emerged as one crucial issue for

automotive companies. In the future, companies must attempt to become more eco-
friendly and resource productivity in order to create competitive advantages to win
the competition. It is an unavoidable choice to consider sustainability issues in all
9
organization activities, including maintenance management (Jasiulewicz-Kaczmarek

and Drozyner, 2011).
From all these issues, this research has developed a SMPM framework for
automotive companies which considers three factors of sustainability (economic,
social, and environmental) in a balanced manner, and at the same time cascaded the
indicators into three hierarchies (corporate, tactical, and functional level). It is
believed that a balanced and integrated framework benefits company in creating
competitive advantages in order to become a sustainable company. Moreover, a
hierarchical manner will ensure that maintenance objectives have direct linkage and
clear impact on the business strategies or for profit generating.
It is strongly believed that the findings of this research will enable the
automotive company practitioners to make the best and accurate decisions related to
assets and facilities management, e.g. allocation of capital. Since this research
applied Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to define the weight of each measure. It
also enables practitioners to know which measures have important effects on the
corporate objectives compared to other measures.
This study will also develop a Microsoft Excel-based application for SMPM
system. This application facilitates decision makers to obtain real-time information
in making effective and efficient decisions within short and limited time. Finally, the
results of this study are expected to lead to better understanding and provide new
insights in developing SMPM system which benefits to both researchers and
practitioners.
10
1.7 Outline of the Thesis
This thesis consists of seven chapters. The first chapter describes the
introduction to the research. It explains the background of the research, problem
statement, research questions, research objectives, research scopes, and significance
of the research.
Chapter 2 presents a critical review related to maintenance management and

sustainability. It begins with a review of maintenance management objectives,
importance and evolution of MPM systems in manufacturing companies, sustainable
manufacturing and maintenance management, reviews on previous SMPM systems
and SMPM hierarchy in manufacturing companies, automotive industry and
sustainability, and overview of AHP method.
The research methodology applied in conducting this study is explained in

Chapter 3. This chapter begins with a discussion on the overall structure of research
methodology, detail description of survey methodology, and development of SMPM
system guideline.
Chapter 4 presents the statistical analysis results of the data from the full
survey. The analysis starts with the general descriptive statistic of the respondent
companies. This is followed by the results and analysis of company’s motivation in
implementing sustainable maintenance management. The next section recapitulates
and analyzes the results of reliability test. Furthermore, the results of Exploratory
Factor Analysis (EFA) and the Partial Least Squares – Structural Equation Modeling
(PLS-SEM) are summarized and analyzed to prove the validity test requirement of
the data.
The development of a SMPM guideline is presented in Chapter 5. It starts

with determining the weight of each measure using AHP method. It follows with
determining the data scaling guideline and normalization. Finally, a Microsoft
Excel-based application that was developed is presented as a tool for developing and
measuring SMP achievement.
11
Chapter 6 discusses findings of the research, how these findings relate to

previous studies. Lastly, Chapter 7 presents the conclusions of research, limitations
of the study, and recommendations for future research.
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
This chapter begins by reviewing Malaysian automotive industry and the

effects of sustainability issues on the automotive industry. This is followed by a
brief review on maintenance management objectives; the importance and evolution
of MPM systems in manufacturing companies. Further to this, the relationship
between sustainable manufacturing and maintenance management is discussed. The
next section focused on critical review on SMPM systems established by previous
researchers and SMPM hierarchy in manufacturing companies. Finally, the
overview of AHP is presented.
2.2 Overview of Malaysian Automotive Industry
The Malaysian automotive industry is one of the important components for

Malaysian economy. Tun Mahathir Mohamad (Malaysia’s Father of Modernization)
has initiated to establish an automotive assembling and manufacturing industry in
Malaysia (Proton, 2017). On 7 May 1983, Perusahaan Otomobil Nasional Bhd.
(PROTON) was established as the first national car manufacturer, followed by
Perusahaan Otomobil Kedua Sdn. Bhd. (PERODUA) on 1 August 1994. These
projects have driven the development of components and parts manufacturing in
Malaysia (Amelia et al., 2009).
13
On a yearly basis, Total Industry Volume (TIV) that consists of Passenger

Vehicles (PV) and Commercial Vehicles (CV) has been continuously increased as
presented in Figure 2.1. 47.3% of the TIV were contributed by the two national car
manufacturers i.e. PROTON and PERODUA (MAA, 2016).
Source: Malaysian Automotive Association (MAA) (2016)

Figure 2.1 TIV trend from 2009 to 2015
According to Salleh et al. (2012b), national car manufacturers need to

produce the quality cars and at the same time cost competitiveness in order to win the
competition. Therefore, the manufacturers need to adopt and implement the
management best practices at the entire organizational functions. It has motivated
the researchers and practitioner to conduct studies in this industry.
Table 2.1 presents the previous studies in Malaysian automotive companies.

The studies have been focused on how to improve the performance of Malaysian
automotive companies. The several studies have tried to embed sustainability issues
in their studies. To the best of author knowledge, there is no study that identifies
how does maintenance management contribute to a company’s performance and at
the same time consider the three factors of sustainability (economic, environmental,
and social). Therefore, author initiated to embed sustainability issues for
14
maintenance management implementation and developed a system to assess its

implementation.
Table 2.1: Previous studies in Malaysian automotive industry

Author Objectives Focus area
Amelia et al. To initiate automotive component reuse in Malaysia. Sustainability
(2009)
Zakuan (2009) To develop a model that incorporates total quality Company
management implementation, ISO/TS 16949 efforts and their performance
impact on organizational performance between Malaysian
and Thailand automotive industries.
Salleh et al. To develop a Green Lean Total Quality Information Sustainability,
(2012a) Management (GLTQ IM) framework in Malaysian company
Automotive Companies. performance
Salleh et al. To investigate the origin and evolution of Total Quality Company
(2012b) Management (TQM) and lean manufacturing in the performance
Malaysian automotive industry. Moreover, this study is
aimed to examine critical success and failure factors of the
implementation stage based on established quality criteria,
such as in the Deming Prize Award, Malaysian Prime
Minister Award, ISO/TS16949, Malcolm Baldrige National
Quality Award, SAEJ4001 and Toyota Production System.
Amrina (2013) To develop a sustainable manufacturing performance Sustainability,
evaluation tool for Malaysian automotive companies. company
performance
Habidin and To explore the critical success factors for lean Six Sigma in Company
Yusof (2013) the Malaysian automotive industry. performance
Putri et al. To empirically evaluate the critical factors for successful Company
(2014) quality engineering implementation in automotive-related performance
companies in Malaysia and Indonesia.
Zailani et al. This study aims to investigate the determinants of green Sustainability,
(2015) innovation adoption and its effect on firm performance. company
performance
Raja Mamat et To determine key success factors in establishing end-of-life Sustainability
al. (2016) vehicle management system for Malaysia. The focus of this
study is Malaysian vehicle manufacturers and distributors,
part dealers, and end-of-life vehicle collectors.
Yusop et al. To provide a clear view on the actual implementation of Sustainability
(2016) automotive remanufacturing in Malaysia.
2.3 Automotive Industry and Sustainability
The automotive industry is a high capital, high technology, and high product-
integrated industry (Chen and Wu, 2010). It has positive impacts on economic and
social development of producing countries, as well as it drives the growth of related
industry sectors (Rosli, 2006). Unfortunately, expansion of automotive
manufacturing companies has induced significant negative impacts to local and
15
global environment (Rosli, 2006). Nunes and Bennet (2010) have summarized the
environmental aspects and impacts of the automotive industry as presented in Table
2.2.
Table 2.2: Environmental aspects and impacts of the automotive industry (Nunes
and Bennett, 2010)
Activities Environmental Environmental Category Type
Aspects Impacts
Production
Buildings Land use Depletion of natural Local, regional, Negative
construction and Energy, water, and resources and and global
operations material consumption pollution
Manufacturing Emissions of harmful Depletion of natural Local, regional, Negative
processes substances resources and and global
Energy, water, and pollution
material consumption
Logistics Shipping Pollution of sea and Local, regional, Negative
Air air, traffic congestion and global
Road
Job offers Employment Increased welfare Local and Positive
regional
Economic Trade of goods and Flow of capital, Local, regional, Positive
contribution services, spin-offs people’s needs met and global
Use
Infra-structure Roads, parking spaces, Depletion of natural Local and Negative
bridges, etc. resources regional
Fuel combustion Air emissions Air pollution Local, regional, Negative
and global
Mobility Mobility of people and Location transfer of Regional Positive
goods people and goods
Congestion and Local Negative
accidents
End of life
Collection, Energy consumption Depletion of natural Regional Negative
dismantling, Avoidance of resources and
reusing, irresponsible disposal pollution
remanufacturing, Re-use of materials Conversation of Regional Positive
and recycling natural resources
End-of-life Landfill disposal Depletion of natural Regional Negative
disposal resources and soil
contamination
Sustainability has been considered as the main issue in Malaysian industries,

including automotive sector. The newest version of NAP has shown the focus on
green initiatives, development of technology and human capital, market expansion,
and enhancement of the automotive industry ecosystem (MITI, 2014).
16
In order to ensure a sustainable automotive industry, MITI (2014) proposed

three main directions and three strategies of NAP. The directions are investment;
technology and engineering; market expansion, while three main strategies are
human capital development; supply chain development; safety, security, and
environment. These directions and strategies support Malaysia’s commitment to
reduce its 40 percent carbon intensity by 2020, increase fuel efficiency, preserve the
environment, and conserve natural resources.
2.4 Maintenance Objectives in Manufacturing Companies
The basic task of maintenance function is to ensure the manufacturing

companies achieve its objectives by delivering excellent and efficient services
(Haroun and Duffuaa, 2009). Maintenance is therefore a crucial support function
because it affects all aspects in a company including cost, environmental, and safety
issues (Liyanage et al., 2009).
Generally, maintenance management processes are designed to minimize

failures and the consequences of failure of industrial plant, machinery, and
equipment (Alsyouf, 2009). Regular maintenance activities enable managers to
detect unsafe operation of machines because of corrosion, fatigue, tear, and wear. As
a result, equipment capability and safety condition can be maintained to fulfill fixed
production targets. Ratnayake (2013) revealed that lack of maintenance on heavily
utilized assets may lead to accidents. Additionally, Pintelon and Muchiri (2009)
stated that improper system of implementing maintenance activities can lead to
hazardous plant conditions harmful to human and environment.
According to Pintelon and Muchiri (2009), maintenance is a vital function in

mitigating safety problems where maintenance workers are able to identify potential
hazards, especially during preventive maintenance activities to achieve zero failures
and zero accidents. Conversely, reactive maintenance is a potential source for unsafe
conditions. It has been pointed out in previous surveys as a contributing factor to the
total number of incidents by up to 60% (Idhammar, 2016). Additionally, Ajukumar
17
and Gandhi (2013) argued that increasing maintenance activities may lead to
environmental problems due to the fact that defective parts, used oils, grease, and
cleaning agents are discarded into the environment. As a result, necessary
maintenance activities need to be delivered in a cost effective manner and at the
same time have minimum negative impacts to the human and environment. Table
2.3 presents a list of objectives of maintenance functions described by previous
researchers.
Table 2.3: Objectives of maintenance functions

Objectives Author
Ensuring system function in providing the right level of reliability, efficiency, Dekker (1996)
and capability, thus the system enables to produce at the right quality.
Ensuring system life through proper assets management system in order to Dekker (1996)
keep the systems in good working condition.
Ensuring safety of the asset. Dekker (1996)
Ensuring human well-being is more focused on a psychological aspect in Dekker (1996);
making the asset looks good (example: painting for aesthetic reasons). Pintelon and
Muchiri (2009)
Preventing significant deterioration or deviation of plant function, which can Hale et al. (1998)
impend production and safety and to return a plant to full functioning after
breakdown or disturbance.
Minimizing failures that would have negative impacts on environment and Chelsom et al.
safety. (2005)
Minimizing operation cost or maximizing revenue by increasing efficiency Chelsom et al.
and preventing downtime. (2005)
Maximizing the capacity and returns of the individual asset. Ingalls (2005)
Obviating the accidents by reducing the overload due to environmental factors Pintelon and
(e.g. reduce noise level) and reducing situational factors (e.g. prevent oil Muchiri (2009)
leakage onto the floor).
Manufacturing companies need to practice world-class maintenance systems

by following and adopting the maintenance best practices in order to become a
world-class manufacturing company (Kodali et al., 2009). The objectives of a
world-class maintenance system are (Kodali et al., 2009; Mishra et al., 2015):
- Create competitive advantage related to production capacity by implementing
maintenance best practices.
- Increasing the overall equipment effectiveness to sustain the highest
productivity achievements.
- Reducing the emergency condition of overall equipment.
- Reducing investments in maintenance.
- Enhance the efficiency of the production system through a systematic
approach by eliminating all losses.
18
- Developing the design of asset in terms of maintainability and reliability for

reducing life cycle cost.
- Achieve the highest level of product quality by investigating, analyzing, and
improving the process, material, and equipment conditions.
- Realizing zero accidents and protecting the natural environment.
- Establish a flexible organization by providing the multi-skilled internal
workforce.
- Assuring the return on investment of the asset is positive.
- Optimizing the maintenance cost and providing an excellent service to
operations by delivering Computerized Maintenance Management System
(CMMS), professional teamwork, and using the newest tools and
technologies.
2.5 Importance of Maintenance Performance Measurement System in

Manufacturing Companies
Today, maintenance management is recognized as a vital function for the

survival and success of the manufacturing companies. A manufacturing company,
for example, needs a proper maintenance management system in order to support the
objective of meeting the customer demands through process capability and
consistency (Desirey, 2000). This fits with the findings of Alsyouf (2009) that
proper maintenance management practices have positive contributions to the quality,
efficiency, and effectiveness of a company’s operations, and that in turn create
competitive advantages as described in Figure 2.2.
Performance Measurement System (PMS) consists of a set of measures,

procedures, methods, and tool that be used to quantify the efficiency and
effectiveness of a process (Franceschini et al., 2007; Maestrini et al., 2017). In this
study, a MPM system is defined as a system that can be used to identify the
efficiency and effectiveness of maintenance management implementation which
consists of a framework (a set of measures), a measurement guideline, and a tool for
measurement process.
19
Figure 2.2 Contribution of maintenance management practices in creating

competitive advantages (Alsyouf, 2009)
For competitive advantage, the manufacturing company needs to define

several main objectives, for example, increase the profit, reduce the overall costs,
achieve the desired quality level of products and services, reduce environmental
cases, increase the improvement related to human resources, etc. Consequently,
maintenance objectives need to be aligned with the company objectives because they
play the enabling function in achieving these objectives (Haroun and Duffuaa, 2009).
Alsyouf (2009) also highlighted that maintenance is a crucial support

function and it is necessary to identify its impact on corporate’s performance. Parida
and Kumar (2006) argued that maintenance requires an appropriate MPM system in
planning, controlling, and improving the outcome of the maintenance process.
Consequently, the maintenance objectives need to be aligned with corporate
objectives. In addition, Khalili Shavarini et al. (2013) argued that alignment of
business strategy, operations strategy as well as maintenance strategy is very crucial
that enables the highest achievement of corporate performance. Previous studies
have highlighted some important drivers which lead to the usage of MPM system as
presented in Table 2.4.
20
Table 2.4: Drivers for implementing MPM system

Factors Author
Measuring the contributions or value added created by Alsyouf (2006); Parida and
maintenance management function in achieving business Kumar (2006)
objectives.
Justifying investment. Parida and Kumar (2006)
Revising resource allocations. Parida and Kumar (2006)
Health, safety, and environment issues. Parida and Kumar (2006)
Knowledge management issues. Parida and Kumar (2006)
Adapting to new trends in operation and maintenance strategy. Parida and Kumar (2006)
Organizational structural changes. Parida and Kumar (2006)
Recognize the strengths and weaknesses the implementation of Alsyouf (2006)
maintenance management strategy.
Develop a rigorous foundation for a comprehensive maintenance Alsyouf (2006)
improvement strategy by applying quantitative and qualitative
data.
Re-arrange the measures that are used in benchmarking Alsyouf (2006)
maintenance management practice and performance with the best
practice within and outside the same branch of industry.
A good maintenance system is needed to meet a rapidly changing customer

demand pattern in increasing the quality level of product, reducing delivery time, and
enhancing production effectiveness (Ben-Daya et al., 2009). Therefore, the company
is able to meet customer satisfaction and at the same time achieve the cost
optimization.
Tatila et al. (2014) in their research observed the effects of PMS use in
maintenance process and showed that proper design of PMS is positively related to
its use, the willingness to improve competitiveness, and awareness of organizational
goals. The use of PMS for personal-level motivational and improvement practices is
also positively related to motivation. Moreover, motivation and willingness to
improve competitiveness are positively related to organizational efficiency. Finally,
motivation is positively related to performance area dedication. Hence, it can be
concluded that proper MPM system is one of the critical factors for improving
performance.
21
2.6 Evolution of Maintenance Performance Measurement Systems in

Manufacturing Companies
Historically, performance measurement, in general, can be divided into two

phases (Parida, 2006). During the first phase (before the 1980s), the manufacturing
companies took cost accounting as the main focus of performance measurement. In
the second phase (after 1980), the manufacturing companies have considered non-
financial view of performance measurement. The BSC is an approach that leads to a
more balanced and holistic view in measuring company performance. The BSC
considers cost accounting and non-cost accounting aspects as well as internal and
external stakeholders. Furthermore, many researchers have adopted BSC approach
in developing performance measurement, including in the maintenance field, such as
Tsang (1998), Tsang et al. (1999), Kutucuoglu et al. (2001), Liyanage and Kumar
(2003), Mather (2005), Alsyouf (2006), Parida and Chattopadhyay (2007), Liyanage
et al. (2009), and Parida (2012).
The cost accounting measures have been criticized by Gomes et al. (2006) for
their shortcomings as presented in Table 2.5. However, in an attempt to overcome
the limitations of the cost accounting measures, Gomes et al. (2011) mentioned
several characteristics in modern PMS as presented in Table 2.5.
Table 2.5: Characteristics of traditional and modern PMS (Gomes et al., 2006;
Gomes et al., 2011)
Traditional/ Cost Accounting Modern
Encourage local optimization. Reflect relevant non-financial information, based
on key success factors of each organization.
Focused on the past. Implemented as means of articulating strategy
and monitoring organization results.
Impediments for implementation of just-in-time Based on organizational objectives, critical
manufacturing strategies or the attainment of success factors and customer needs and
their potential benefits. monitoring both financial and non-financial
aspects.
Do not provide adequate information for Change dynamically with the strategy.
productivity measurement and improvement
programs.
Measures lag behind performance indicators Meet the needs of specific situations in relevant
because they are historical in nature, by definition manufacturing operations, and should be long-
reporting on activities that already have occurred. term oriented, as well as simple to understand
and implement.
22
Table 2.5: Characteristics of traditional and modern PMS (Gomes et al., 2006;
Gomes et al., 2011) (continued)
Traditional/ Cost Accounting Modern
Results of management actions and Make a link to the reward systems.
organizational performance, and not the cause of
them.
Failed to measure and integrate all the factors Financial and non-financial measures must be
critical to success of a business. aligned, and used within a strategic framework.
Not externally focused. Stimulate the continuous improvement processes.
Unsuitable in modern manufacturing settings. Easy to understand and to use.
Do not consider about the factors such as Clearly defined and have a very explicit purpose.
customer service innovation, the percentage of
first-time quality, and employee development
which actually help in improving market share
and profits.
Lack the ability to guide the firm in its efforts to Allow a fast and rigorous response to changes in
achieve manufacturing excellence. the organizational environment.
The alignment between PMS and organization objectives is one of the

important characteristics of modern PMS as highlighted in Table 2.5. Therefore, this
explanation concludes that a good framework of MPM needs to be in-line with
company objectives. It is focused on external and internal requirements and
considers both cost accounting and non-cost accounting measures. The measures are
holistic and balanced in term of outcome indicators and performance drivers.
Further, the application of MPM system varies slightly from one company to
another. It can be influenced by competitive pressure, company limitations, global
trends, regulation, etc. (Mather, 2005). Thus, every company needs to develop a
specific MPM system based on their own needs. They identify the indicators that are
best suited to their company financially and non-financially in order to meet their
business objectives.
2.7 Sustainable Manufacturing and Maintenance Management
In 1987, World Commission on Environment and Development defined

sustainable development as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising
the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. Moreover, according to
The US Department of Commerce (2016) sustainable manufacturing is:
23
“manufacturing processes that minimize negative environmental impact;

conserve energy and natural resources; are safe for employees, communities, and
consumers; and are economically sound”.
Currently, manufacturing companies have regarded sustainability as a crucial

issue as a result of the growing scarcity of non-renewable resources; stringent
environmental, health, and safety regulation; enhancing customer demand for
environmentally-friendly products; etc. (Jayal et al., 2010). O’Brien (2012) has
mentioned the evolution of paradigm in manufacturing companies as presented in
Figure 2.3. The focus of modern manufacturing has shifted from efficiency to
sustainability. In the early 2000s, the manufacturing companies have initiated to take
into account environmental and social aspects in sustaining their business.
Sustainability
Reconfigu- (2000s)
rability
Flexibility
(1990s)
(1980s)
Quality
(1970s)
Efficiency
(1960s)
Figure 2.3 The paradigm shift in manufacturing companies (O’Brien, 2012)
Before the 2000s, sustainability issues are mainly on environmental strategies

which are concentrated on pollution, waste, and emission reduction (Fiksel, 2009).
Today, the concept of sustainability has expanded to creating competitive advantages
where the three pillar of sustainability (economic, environmental, and social) are
considered in a balanced level. Figure 2.4 shows the evolution of environmental
strategy as proposed by Fiksel (2009).
24
Figure 2.4 The evolution of environmental strategy (Fiksel, 2009)
A sustainable manufacturing company has to take into consideration every

issue of product, process, and system at all relevant levels. According to Jayal et al.
(2010), at the product level it is required to move from traditional 3R (reduce, reuse,
recycle) to 6R (reduce, reuse, recover, redesign, remanufacture, recycle). The
change of this concept forms the basis for sustainable manufacturing. Figure 2.5
describes the evolution of sustainable manufacturing.
Figure 2.5 The evolution of sustainable manufacturing (Jawahir, 2016)
It is crucial to embed sustainability issues into all manufacturing operations.

It includes maintenance management which is a significant contributor to achieve the
status of a sustainable company (Liyanage and Badurdeen, 2009). Ratnayake (2013)
argued that asset-intensive industries are forced to achieve a balanced and sustainable
25
performance over the assets life cycle. Figures 2.6 and 2.7 present the relationship
between maintenance management process and sustainable performance.
Figure 2.6 Framework of maintenance responsibility related to sustainability

performance of an industrial asset (Liyanage et al., 2009)
Figure 2.7 Asset maintenance management for sustainable performance (Ratnayake,

2013)
26
Aoudia et al. (2008) argued that ineffectiveness of maintenance management

policies can lead to negative impact on safety, health and the environment as well as
to economic aspect. Furthermore, Raouf (2009) specifically highlighted the impact
of lacking in maintenance management quality on the environment as described in
Table 2.6.
Table 2.6: The impact of poor maintenance management quality on the environment
(Raouf, 2009)
The impact of poor maintenance Environmental impacts
management quality
Overproduction due to unplanned More raw materials and energy consumed in making the
breakdowns, etc. unnecessary products. Extra products may become obsolete
requiring disposal. Hazardous material use may result in extra
emissions, waste disposal, worker exposure, etc.
Extra inventory More packaging to store Work in Progress (WIP). Waste from
deterioration or damage to stored WIP. More materials needed
to replace damaged WIP. More warehousing costs.
Extra transportation More energy uses for transport over production. Emissions
from transport. More space required for WIP. More packaging
required to protect components during movement. Damage and
spills during transport. Transportation of hazardous materials
requires special shipping and packaging to prevent risk during
accidents.
Defects Raw materials and energy consumed in making defective
products. Defective components require recycling or disposal.
More space required for rework and repair.
Over-processing More raw materials consumed per unit of production.
Unnecessary processing increases waste.
Waiting for maintenance Potential material spoilage or component damage causing
waste. Wasted energy from heating, cooling, and lighting
during production downtime.
Sustainable maintenance development is aimed to extend the productive life

of assets and improve system productivity (Lee et al., 2007; Dagman and Söderberg,
2012). Therefore, sustainable maintenance is a crucial choice for sustainable
development in manufacturing companies. The application of sustainable
development provides potential benefits as follows (Al-Ghanim, 2003; Holmgren,
2005; Jasiulewicz-Kaczmarek and Drozyner, 2011):
- Economical:
i. Reduce the environmental fees
ii. Reduce the use of materials
iii. Reduce the use of energy
iv. Reduce the risk of potential failures
27
- Organizational:
i. Improve the communication between organizational units, especially
between maintenance workers and plant operators
ii. Increase the efficiency of services performed
iii. Increase the awareness of employees
iv. Better planning of services
v. Build the effective and efficient external communication procedures
of dealing with failures
vi. Develop the good relationships with business environment and
administration
- Environmental:
i. Reduce the amount of waste produced
ii. Reduce the amount of pollution produced
iii. Reduce the use of technology that harms the environment
iv. Reduce the number of lubricants used
v. Eliminate or reduce the penalties related to environmental illegal cases
vi. Reduce conflicts and irritants for the stakeholders
vii. Reduce the use of non-renewable resources
The outcomes of sustainability implementation need to be measured. The

measurement process is required for monitoring and controlling achievement of
sustainability initiatives as the key factor in long-term competitiveness (Fiksel, 2009;
Ratnayake, 2013). Measurement process provides important information for
identifying performance gaps for future action (Warhurst, 2002). In addition,
measurement progress of sustainability is necessary not only for motivating internal
process improvement, but also for stakeholder communication (Fiksel, 2009). The
important issue in this study is, how to incorporate sustainability issues into a
balanced and integrated SMPM framework, and to consider economic, social, and
environmental as the three pillars of sustainability.
28
2.8 Review on Previous Sustainable Maintenance Performance

Measurement Frameworks in Manufacturing Companies
This section presents the review of literature in order to identify the most
commonly used measures for managing Sustainable Maintenance Management
(SMM) process in manufacturing companies. The review is intended to focus on the
SMPM frameworks which are related to the development of a balanced set of SMP
measures.
Maintenance management needs an appropriate MPM framework in order to

monitor, measure, and improve the outcomes. Moreover, Piechnicki et al. (2015)
argued that monitoring result is one of the critical success factors in implementing
total productive maintenance systems. Monitoring requires the measurement process
to identify the current performance achievement and to determine the desired target
of performance level, so as continuous improvement process can be implemented.
MPM framework needs to be developed in a balanced manner that involves

financial and non-financial measures. Jusoh et al. (2008) conducted research in
Malaysian manufacturers and he revealed that the use of multiple performance
measures facilitates companies in enhancing corporate performance. However, he
found out that several developed MPM frameworks were not integrated and were
more focused on specific aspects. Some of the researchers focused on financial
aspect in measuring maintenance performance, such as Swanson (2001), Duffua and
Haroun (2009), Mirghani (2009), and Muchiri et al. (2011).
Swanson (2001) conducted a survey for determining maintenance

contribution with regard to production cost, product quality, and equipment
availability in the metalworking industry. A five-point Likert scale was used to get
responses from both plant managers and maintenance managers, where “1”
represents that less than 20% of performance improvement was the result of
maintenance efforts and “5” represents that more than 80% of performance
improvement was the result of maintenance efforts. Additionally, this study
examined cause-effect correlation between maintenance strategies and performance
29
level using regression analysis with regard to production cost, product quality, and
equipment availability. The results confirmed that proactive maintenance strategies
and aggressive maintenance strategies have a strong positive relationship with
performance. These results were consistent with literature which state proactive and
aggressive maintenance strategy allows enhancement of the performance level
whereas reactive maintenance strategy can cause the performance level to go
downwards.
Similarly, Duffuaa and Haroun (2009) developed a framework to control the

maintenance management process in order to increase reliability of the assets, which
considered costs, quality, and availability as the main criteria. This framework
proposed nine indicators namely 1. overall equipment effectiveness, 2. percentage of
lost production hours due to breakdown, 3. mean time between failures, 4. mean time
of repair, 5. machine breakdown severity, 6. percentage of planned maintenance, 7.
maintenance efficiency, 8. effective cost of labor/hour, and 9. effective cost of
maintenance/man/hour. Maintenance control attempts to manage and assign
maintenance resources in achieving maintenance objectives by delivering proper
activities, tools, and procedures. Maintenance control was considered as a vital part
of maintenance management.
Mirghani (2009) proposed a budgeting and costing framework for planned

maintenance activities where the cost elements are divided into direct materials
(spare parts) cost, direct maintenance labor cost, and support services cost.
Moreover, the proposed framework can be adopted to develop budgeting and costing
for un-planned maintenance activities. He also argued that planned maintenance is
crucial to achieve cost efficiency and profitability. Therefore, planned maintenance
budgeting has to be aligned with the mission statement and business strategy.
Muchiri et al. (2011) established a framework for measuring maintenance

performance which was aligned to corporate strategy in terms of cost, work
performance, and equipment performance. The framework proposed 31 indicators
that have been grouped into six perspectives with regard to leading and lagging
indicators as presented in Table 2.7.
30
Table 2.7: Leading and lagging maintenance performance indicators (Muchiri et al.,
2011)
Perspectives Indicators
Leading performance indicators
Work identification Percentage of proactive work
Percentage of reactive work
Percentage of improvement work
Work request response rate
Work planning Planning intensity/ rate
Quality of planning
Planning responsiveness
Work scheduling Scheduling intensity
Quality of scheduling
Schedule realization rate
Work execution Schedule compliance
Mean time to repair (MTTR)
Manpower utilization rate
Manpower efficiency
Work order turnover
Backlog size
Quality of execution (rework)
Lagging performance indicators
Measures of equipment performance Number of failures
Failure/ breakdown frequency
Mean time between failure (MTBF)
Availability
Overall equipment effectiveness (OEE)
Measures of cost performance Direct maintenance cost
Breakdown severity
Maintenance intensity
Percentage of maintenance cost component
over manufacturing cost
Equipment replacement value (ERV)
Maintenance stock turnover
Percentage cost of personnel
Percentage cost of subcontractors
Percentage cost of supplies
In contrast, a number of researchers have attempted to take into account

financial and non-financial aspects when developing MPM framework, for example
Cholasuke et al. (2004). They conducted a pilot survey of 18 Small Medium
Enterprises (SMEs) and large UK manufacturing companies for configuring the
31
maintenance management practices. This pilot survey revealed some important

results. Firstly, only one-third of the organizations takes into consideration
maintenance management practices and gains the benefits. Secondly, management
involvement is very crucial in supporting maintenance function. Thirdly,
“maintenance approach” and “continuous improvement” have a significant
contribution to an effective maintenance management program. In addition, this
research also proposed ten key perspectives that can be used to evaluate the
effectiveness of maintenance management practices in manufacturing company,
namely; maintenance effectiveness, maintenance policy and organization,
maintenance approach, task planning and scheduling, information management and
CMMS, spare part management, human resource management, contracting out
maintenance, financial aspect, continuous improvement.
Furthermore, Parida (2012) stated that every single MPM framework has to
be consistent with the BSC to ensure the maintenance process is aligned to the
business objectives. BSC is a balanced performance measurement framework which
provides the holistic outlook of company performance with regards to four
perspectives, namely; financial, customer, business processes, and human resources
(Biazzo and Garengo, 2012). Recently, BSC has been used by more than 70% of
companies worldwide for measuring their performance (Biazzo and Garengo, 2012).
BSC has been adapted by previous researchers in developing performance
measurement frameworks including in the MPM frameworks, such as Tsang (1998),
Tsang et al. (1999), Kutucuoglu et al. (2001), Liyanage and Kumar (2003), Mather
(2005), Alsyouf (2006), Parida and Chattopadhyay (2007), Liyanage et al. (2009),
and Parida (2012).
Tsang (1998) and Tsang et al. (1999) are amongst the first researchers who
have adapted the BSC approach in developing MPM framework. Their framework
proposed seven key performance indicators with respect to four BSC perspectives as
presented in Table 2.8. Their proposed maintenance performance indicators are
specific to an electricity transmission and distribution company where it is
developed, as these indicators are correlated with the company objectives. However,
32
these indicators can be used in other companies by making some adjustments based
on the strategy of each company.
Table 2.8: Proposed maintenance performance indicators for an electricity

transmission and distribution company (Tsang et al., 1999)
Perspective Strategic Objectives Key Performance Indicators
Financial Reduce operation and Operation and maintenance costs per
maintenance costs customer
Customer Increase customer satisfaction Customer-minute loss
Customer satisfaction rating
Internal processes Enhance system integrity Percentage of time voltage exceeds
limits
Number of contingency plans
reviewed
Learning and growth Develop a multi-skilled and Percentage of cross-trained staff
empowered workforce Hours of training per employee
Figure 2.8 MPM framework (Kutucuoglu et al., 2001)
Kutucuoglu et al. (2001) adopted Quality Function Deployment (QFD)

concept for developing a framework of MPM based on BSC perspectives. A case
study at a SME which manufactures cable management products was carried out to
draw out the practical implications of the framework and to validate the key features
33
of the proposed framework. This framework consists of several key features as

defined in Figure 2.8.
Nowadays, sustainability emerges as the crucial issues in all organization

sectors, including the maintenance sector. Alsyouf (2006) stated that MPM
framework needs to take into consideration the sustainability initiatives, especially in
high environmental risk industries, such as automotive, chemicals, oil and gas, etc.
As a result, several previous researchers, like Liyanage and Kumar (2003), Mather
(2005), Alsyouf (2006), Parida and Chattopadhyay (2007), Liyanage et al. (2009),
and Parida (2012) have modified the BSC approach where sustainability issues with
regard to environmental and social factors have been considered as well as economic
factor in developing MPM frameworks.
Liyanage and Kumar (2003) have initiated considerations of sustainability

issues in developing an Operation and Maintenance Performance Management
(OMPM) concept using BSC approach in oil and gas organizations in the Norwegian
continental shelf. This system used five performance leading and five performance
lagging indicators as shown in Figure 2.9.
Figure 2.9 OMPM concept (Liyanage and Kumar, 2003)

34
In addition, Liyanage et al. (2009) highlighted that sustainable maintenance

management has critical impact related to increase productivity, reliability, safety,
and asset value. Therefore, they recommended 15 key issues for controlling
maintenance impact with respect to three sustainability perspectives, namely
financial, social, and environmental perspective as presented in Figure 2.10.
Figure 2.10 Basis for assessment of gains and losses due to maintenance upon
sustainability perspectives (Liyanage et al., 2009)
Based on three years of studying, implementing, and analyzing the BSC

method in maintenance and asset management environment, Mather (2005) has
constructed a MPM framework well-known as the “Maintenance Scorecard”. This
framework consists of six perspectives in a balanced manner as presented in Figure
2.11. Mather also proposed 33 maintenance performance indicators. However, these
indicators are mostly related to financial aspect.
35
Figure 2.11 The maintenance scorecard model (Mather, 2005)
In addition, Alsyouf (2006) conducted research that used the BSC approach
to evaluate the value created by support functions like maintenance to business
performance. This research developed a MPM framework where business strategies
are delivered to maintenance people at the functional level in order to build the clear
communication line with management people at the corporate level. This framework
was classified into six perspectives as demonstrated in Figure 2.12. Furthermore, it
was validated through a case study at a Swedish paper mill. The case study then
showed that good maintenance performance enables increase in competitiveness and
profitability of the manufacturing company.
36
.
Figure 2.12 Impact of maintenance on business performance (Alsyouf, 2006)
Additionally, Parida and Chattopadhyay (2007) have developed a

maintenance performance framework which adopted the BSC approach and
considered sustainability issues. Recently, Parida (2012) developed a multi-
hierarchical MPM framework where 67 indicators were cascaded into three
organization levels, i.e. strategic level, tactical level, and operational level as
presented in Figure 2.13. This framework used a slightly different criteria compared
with the previous framework. However, the developed framework did not integrate
all relevant indicators related to sustainability issues, especially environmental and
safety indicators, and did not clearly identify the cause and effect relationship
amongst the indicators.
37
Figure 2.13 Multi-criteria hierarchical framework for MPM (Parida, 2012)
To become more eco-efficient and sustainable, MPM framework needs to

consider all relevant aspects of sustainability initiatives in a balanced manner in
terms of financial and non-financial aspects; qualitative and quantitative indicators.
The lack of maintenance management has serious negative impacts on the financial
aspect, as well as to environmental, health and safety aspects (Aoudia et al., 2008).
Several MPM frameworks have attempted to consider three factors of

sustainability initiatives, even though all relevant sustainability indicators were not
comprehensive. Raouf (2004) stated that the integration of safety and maintenance
activities are very important in order to achieve business strategies, including
increasing plant capacity and enhancing product value. A framework was developed
to measure the outcome of safety and maintenance process as presented in Figure
38
2.14. This framework did not integrate all relevant sustainability indicators,
especially environmental and safety viewpoints. The measurement process enables
the organization to execute a continuous improvement program.
Figure 2.14 Maintenance performance indicators (Raouf, 2004)
Kodali et al. (2009) have developed a modified AHP approach, namely the
Analytic Hierarchy Constant Sum Method (AHCSM) in an attempt to confirm the
notion that world-class maintenance system (compared to traditional maintenance
system and total productive maintenance) is necessary for the company to become a
world-class manufacturer. The confirmation process conducted was based on 52
performance indicators which were grouped into nine criteria of world-class
maintenance system as presented in Figure 2.15. These performance indicators
consist of cost and social factor (learning and growth, safety, and employee),
whereas the indicators related to environmental performance were discounted. Only
one indicator represents the environmental performance i.e. reduction in pollution.
39
Figure 2.15 Framework for world-class maintenance system (Kodali et al., 2009).
Tang et al. (2015) have applied AHP method and Monte Carlo simulation for
constructing a rational maintenance execution plan in oil and gas industry with
regard to four groups consisting eight criteria as defined in Figure 2.16. This study
conducted a case study at Tarim Oilfield in order to verify the proposed framework.
The case study revealed that “influence of failure on personnel and environment
safety” was considered as the most important criteria for constructing maintenance
execution plan in a well control system. This framework has regarded safety and
environment as the two most crucial criteria as well as the cost criteria. However,
they did not define the specific indicators for identifying the effect of equipment
failures related to human safety and environment.
Figure 2.16 The criteria for constructing maintenance execution plan (Tang et al.,
2015)
40
Recently, Sénéchal (2017) has developed sustainable condition-based

maintenance procedure as presented in Figure 2.17. In the measurement stage, the
effects of maintenance need to be measured with regards to cost, environmental and
social. Yet, this research did not indicate the specific indicators to conduct the
measurement process.
Figure 2.17 Sustainable condition-based maintenance procedure (Sénéchal, 2017)
Conversely, some of the previous MPM frameworks have been developed

with regards to specific factors of sustainability initiatives. Aoudia et al. (2008) have
conducted maintenance management auditing at an oil and gas company based on 12
criteria, namely; financial aspect, relation with exploitation, spare parts management,
continuous improvement, training, task planning and scheduling, maintenance
approach, information management and CMMS, human resource, material means,
policy deployment, and organization. It considered relevant criteria of sustainability
issues, but the safety criteria were not taken into account. Besides that, this research
also identified the effect of ineffectiveness of maintenance management with respect
to plant availability, maintenance and production cost, production returns, and
natural resources. Moreover, this study revealed the driver factors of ineffectiveness
of maintenance management i.e. overlook for planned maintenance execution,
interruption in executing corrective maintenance, and enhancement of work
accidents.
Similarly, Raouf (2009) in his research attempted to identify the relationship

of the quality of maintenance management process with respect to environmental
performance. The research concluded that lack of maintenance quality leads to
increased environmental pollution and expenses due to penalty. In order to monitor
the quality of maintenance management and take the appropriate actions for
41
improvement, Raouf also proposed 33 indicators grouped into four clusters as

presented in Table 2.9. These indicators were focused to measure maintenance
quality from the financial and environmental point of views. However, the effects of
lack of maintenance quality execution into safety factor were not embedded.
Table 2.9: Maintenance performance indicators for monitoring maintenance quality

and environmental performance (Raouf, 2009)
Corporate financial efficiency and effectiveness
Return on net assets
total cost to produce
Maintenance cost per unit produced
Percentage of total direct maintenance cost that is break down related
Percentage of work orders that are preventive maintenance
Maintenance related equipment downtime this year versus last year
Current maintenance costs versus those prior to predictive program
Number of repetitive failures versus total failures
Overall equipment effectiveness combining availability, performance
efficiency, and quality rate
Tactical
Percentage of total number of breakdowns that should have been prevented
Total of items filled on demand versus total requested
Total planned work orders versus total work order received
Preventive maintenance hours performed by operators as percentage of total maintenance hours
Number of equipment breakdowns per hour operated
Functional
Percentage of total work orders generated from preventive maintenance inspections
Percentage of total stock items inactive
Percentage of total labor costs from work orders
Percentage of total labor costs that are planned
Percentage of total in plant equipment in CMMS
Training hours per employee
Percentage of total hours worked by operators spent on equipment improvement
Preventive maintenance hours as a percentage of total maintenance hours
Percentage of failures where root cause analysis is performed
Percentage of critical equipment covered by design studies
Percentage of critical equipment where maintenance tasks are audited
Savings from employee suggestions
Environmental performance
Percentage of materials used
Percentage reduction of energy used
Energy used per unit of production
Water used
Air emissions
Water pollution
Solid waste
Contrast with Aoudia (2008) and Raouf (2009), Chinese and Ghirardo (2010)
have developed MPM framework which was focused on cost and safety perspectives.
Furthermore, they conducted a survey which involved 100 manufacturing companies
42
in Italy. Their study aimed to give a picture of maintenance management application

in these companies, including MPM process. The MPM process was carried out in
an attempt to identify the contribution of maintenance function to equipment
availability, production cost, product quality, and occupational safety. The results
also pointed the main evidence that maintenance has the main contribution in
improving equipment availability. However, this study did not identify the
contribution of maintenance function with respect to environmental factor as one of
the main parts of sustainability initiatives.
On the other hand, Hale et al., (1998) have initiated to conduct a maintenance
management audit based on safety factor in eight Netherlands chemical process
industry. It used eight safety criteria with respect to policy, planning and procedure,
and execution as defined in Table 2.10. The study also revealed that the attention of
the middle management is needed to translate safety policy into daily maintenance
process. Thus, maintenance process enables all operations to be conducted in a safe
manner.
Table 2.10: Evaluation criteria of maintenance management audit (Hale et al., 1998)
Evaluation Criteria of Maintenance Management Audit
Policy General safety policy, safety policy maintenance
Planning and Maintenance concept and safety, safety in resource management, safety in
procedure engineering
execution Safety in scheduling and work planning, safety in execution, safety in breakdown
Similarly, Pintelon and Muchiri (2009) conducted a research to identify the

relationship between maintenance and plant safety. The results revealed that lack of
maintenance enables unsafe conditions to occur to the asset, thus leading to increased
accidents. Moreover, they also proposed 20 performance indicators to measure the
performance achievement with respect to safety perspective only as defined in Figure
2.18.
43
Figure 2.18 Safety performance indicators (Pintelon and Muchiri, 2009)
Besides that, some of the previous researchers paid more attention to safety
and environmental factors. Ajukumar and Ghandi (2013) have applied a hybrid AHP
and TOPSIS method in selecting manufacturing designs based on green maintenance
requirements. The selection process considered environmental and safety factors
without considering cost factor. There are 20 requirement criteria with respect to
environmental, energy, and health and safety as defined in Figure 2.19. The green
design in the early phase of product development enables reduction of the energy and
waste produced when executing the necessary maintenance in the productive use
phase of product, thus the negative impact on the environment and humans can be
reduced.
44
Figure 2.19 Green maintenance requirements (Ajukumar and Ghandi, 2013)
Based upon the above reviews, this study summarized the existing
perspectives of SMP as shown in Table 2.11. It reveals that 20 of 23 researchers
have regarded financial aspect as the main focus in their studies. The perspectives
related to financial aspect have appeared as the commonly used perspectives, namely
costs, quality, and productivity perspectives. The recent studies have also revealed
environmental and safety as emerging perspectives in measuring SMP.
Table 2.11: Summary of SMP perspectives in manufacturing companies

Perspectives of SMP in Manufacturing Companies
Environmental
Effectiveness
Learning and
Productivity
Stakeholder
satisfaction
satisfaction
Health and
Employee
Authors
Quality
growth
safety
Others
Cost
(Year)
Hale et al. (1998) √

Tsang et al. (1999) √ √ √ √
Kutucuoglu et al. (2001) √ √ √ √ √
Swanson (2001) √ √
45
Table 2.11: Summary of SMP perspectives in manufacturing companies (continued)

Perspectives of SMP in Manufacturing Companies
Effectiveness
Learning and
Environment
Productivity
Stakeholder
satisfaction
satisfaction
Health and
Employee
Authors
Quality
growth
safety
Others
Cost
(Year)
Liyanage and Kumar (2003) √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

Cholasuke et al. (2004) √ √ √ √ √ √
Raouf (2004) √ √ √ √ √
Mather (2005) √ √ √ √ √ √
Alsyouf (2006) √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Parida and Chattopadhyay (2007) √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Aoudia et al. (2008) √ √ √ √ √ √
Duffuaa and Haroun (2009) √ √
Kodali et al. (2009) √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Liyanage et al. (2009) √ √ √
Mirghani (2009) √
Pintelon and Muchiri (2009) √
Raouf (2009) √ √ √
Chinese and Ghirardo (2010) √ √ √
Muchiri et al. (2011) √ √ √ √
Parida (2012) √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Ajukumar and Ghandi (2013) √ √
Tang et al. (2015) √ √ √ √ √
Sénéchal (2017) √ √ √
Total 20 14 14 14 13 9 6 5
Based on the existing perspectives of SMP frameworks, this study has

selected eight perspectives with respect to three major sustainability factors as
defined in Figure 2.20. These perspectives have been used as the basis for
developing a balanced and integrated framework which regarded financial and non-
financial viewpoints and at the same time embedded the sustainability initiatives.
46
Economic Factor:
- Cost
Effectiveness
- Quality
- Productivity
Perspectives
Social Factor: of Sustainable
- Learning and Maintenance
growth Performance
- Health and safety Measurement Environmental Factor:
- Employee - Environment
satisfaction
- Customer
satisfaction
Figure 2.20 Proposed perspectives of SMP for manufacturing companies
2.9 Review on Existing Hierarchy of Sustainable Maintenance Performance

Measurement Frameworks in Manufacturing Companies
Based on the literature has been reviewed, this study has identified that
alignment between maintenance objectives and corporate objectives in developing
MPM frameworks were overlooked. In order to resolve this shortcoming,
maintenance performance indicators have to be broken-down into several hierarchies
of organization. Hierarchical performance measurement framework enables
managers to see direct and indirect impacts of maintenance performance against
corporate objectives. This framework can facilitate managers to make more efficient
and effective decisions for instance allocation of capital to several machines based on
their contribution to corporate objectives.
Every organization has a unique structure. Murthy et al., (2002) argued that
maintenance management system can be organized into three organization levels
which are relevant to traditional organization structure. However, there are
organizations that might need to develop maintenance management system using
more than three levels in an attempt to deal with their complex organization structure
47
(Parida and Kumar, 2009). Table 2.12 summarizes the existing maintenance
management framework hierarchies that have been used by previous researchers. It
revealed that all previous studies have used three hierarchy levels in maintenance
management frameworks. Upon these reviews, this research proposed to develop
SMPM framework into three organization levels as defined in Figure 2.21.
Table 2.12: Summary of maintenance management framework hierarchies in

manufacturing companies
Hierarchy Levels
Authors (Year)
Corporate Tactical Functional
Hale et al. (1998) √ √ √
Kutucuoglu et al. (2001) √ √ √
Murthy et al. (2002) √ √ √
Raouf (2004) √ √ √
Mather (2005) √ √ √
Parida and Kumar (2006) √ √ √
Parida and Chattopadhyay (2007) √ √ √
Parida (2007) √ √ √
Liyanage et al. (2009) √ √ √
Parida and Kumar (2009) √ √ √
Raouf (2009) √ √ √
Parida (2012) √ √ √
Ratnayake and Markeset (2012) √ √ √
Corporate
Level
Tactical Level
Functional Level
Figure 2.21 Proposed SMPM hierarchy level

48
2.10 Preliminary Sustainable Maintenance Performance Measurement

Framework for Automotive Companies
Parida (2012) suggested that corporate objectives related to maintenance need

to be determined in order to ensure alignment between corporate objectives and
maintenance objectives. Therefore, based on previous studies (Parida, 2006;
Alsyouf, 2009; Muchiri et al., 2011), this study proposed sustainable maintenance
objectives at the corporate level as presented in Figure 2.22. The BSC approach was
adopted to determine the cause and effect relationship amongst sustainable
maintenance objectives at the corporate level. These objectives were used as the
basis for developing MPM framework by defining SMP indicators at each
organization level.
Based on reviews in Section 2.8, only Parida (2012) has defined maintenance
performance indicators in a multi-criteria hierarchical manner. Unfortunately, these
indicators were not comprehensive enough in terms of environmental and safety
perspectives. Therefore, the author needs to incorporate other indicators defined by
others authors as described in Section 2.8 in an attempt to ensure that the developed
framework was balanced and integrated in terms of financial and non-financial
aspect; qualitative and quantitative indicators. Additionally, this study also adopted
and modified the sustainable production and manufacturing indicators proposed by
Tseng et al. (2009), Chengcheng Fan et al., (2010); Gupta et al. (2011), and Joung et
al. (2013) to make sure the relevant indicators related to sustainability issues were
not overlooked. Finally, this research constructed a balanced and integrated
preliminary framework for measuring SMP in automotive companies. This
framework consists of 78 indicators grouped into eight perspectives with respect to
three sustainability factors, and then they were categorized into three organizational
levels as listed in Table 2.13.
49
Figure 2.22 Proposed sustainable maintenance objectives

50
Table 2.13: List of preliminary SMP measures for automotive companies

No Preliminary Indicators Organization Literature
Level
Economic Factor
Cost Effectiveness Perspectives
1 Return on eco-friendly Corporate Raouf (2004); Alsyouf (2006); Raouf
maintenance investment and (2009); Parida (2012)
innovation
2 Computerized maintenance Corporate Raouf (2009); Ajukumar and Ghandi
management system (2013)
3 Manufacturing budget Corporate Parida (2012)
3.1 Production cost/ unit Tactical Tsang et al. (1999); Liyanage et al.
(2009); Raouf (2009); Parida (2012)
4 Maintenance budget Corporate Tsang et al. (1999); Mirghani (2009);
Parida (2012); Tang et al. (2015)
4.1 Preventive maintenance cost Tactical Mirghani (2009)
4.1.1 Direct material cost Functional Mirghani (2009)
4.1.2 Direct maintenance labor cost Functional Mirghani (2009); Raouf (2009)
4.1.3 Overhead cost Functional Mirghani (2009)
4.2 Corrective maintenance cost Tactical Mirghani (2009)
4.2.1 Direct material cost Functional Mirghani (2009)
4.2.2 Direct maintenance labor cost Functional Mirghani (2009); Raouf (2009)
4.2.3 Overhead cost Functional Mirghani (2009)
4.3 Maintenance cost/ unit Tactical Raouf (2009); Parida (2012)
Quality perspective
1 Overall plant effectiveness Corporate Parida (2012)
1.1 Overall department effectiveness Tactical Parida (2012)
1.1.1 Overall equipment effectiveness Functional Raouf (2004); Alsyouf (2006); Raouf
(2009); Muchiri et al. (2011); Parida
(2012)
1.1.2 Availability Functional Alsyouf (2006); Muchiri et al. (2011);
Parida (2012)
1.1.3 Performance rate Functional Alsyouf (2006); Parida (2012)
1.1.4 Quality rate Functional Alsyouf (2006); Parida (2012)
1.1.5 Mean time between failures Functional Raouf (2004); Muchiri et al. (2011);
Parida (2012)
1.1.6 Number of breakdown Functional Mather (2005); Raouf (2009); Muchiri et
al. (2011)
Productivity perspective
1 Maintenance efficiency Corporate Mather (2005); Parida (2012)
1.1 Preventive maintenance task Tactical Raouf (2009); Muchiri et al. (2011);
Parida (2012)
1.1.1 Maintenance program Functional Raouf (2004); Mather (2005); Raouf
achievement (2009); Muchiri et al. (2011)
1.1.2 Start up after shutdown Functional (Parida and Chattopadhyay, 2007).
1.2 Corrective maintenance task Tactical Muchiri et al. (2011); Parida (2012)
1.2.1 Quality for maintenance task Functional Muchiri et al. (2011)
(rework)
1.2.2 Response time for maintenance Functional Muchiri et al. (2011); Parida (2012)
1.2.3 Mean time to repair Functional Raouf (2004); Mather (2005); Muchiri et
al. (2011); Parida (2012)
51

(continued)
Level
Environmental Factor
Environment perspective
1 Resources saving Corporate Alsyouf (2006)
1.1 Total number of spare parts used Tactical Raouf (2009); Tseng et al. (2009); Parida
(2012); Joung et al. (2013)
1.1.1 Original spare parts used Functional Joung et al. (2013)
1.1.2 Recycled spare parts used Functional Gupta et al. (2011); Joung et al. (2013)
1.1.3 Re-purposed spare parts used Functional Gupta et al. (2011), Joung et al. (2013)
1.1.4 Remanufactured spare parts used Functional Gupta et al. (2011), Joung et al. (2013)
1.2 Total volume of lubricants Tactical Raouf (2009); Tseng et al. (2009)
consumption
1.2.1 Original oils consumption Functional Ajukumar and Gandhi (2013)
1.2.2 Synthetic oils consumption Functional Ajukumar and Ghandi (2013)
1.2.3 Vegetable oils consumption Functional Ajukumar and Ghandi (2013)
1.3 Total volume of water Tactical Gupta et al. (2011)
consumption
1.3.1 Fresh water consumption Functional Tseng et al. (2009)
1.3.2 Recycled water consumption Functional Gupta et al. (2011)
1.4 Total area of land used Tactical Ajukumar and Ghandi (2013)
1.5 Total mass of energy Tactical Liyanage et al. (2009); Raouf (2009);
consumption Tseng et al. (2009); Chengcheng Fan et
al., (2010); Gupta et al. (2011); Joung et
al. (2012); Parida (2012)
1.5.1 Non-renewable energy Functional Tseng et al. (2009); Joung et al. (2012)
consumption
1.5.2 Renewable energy consumption Functional Tseng et al. (2009); Chengcheng Fan et
al., (2010); Joung et al. (2012)
2 Environmental illegal cases Corporate Alsyouf (2006)
2.1 Water pollution Tactical Raouf (2009)
2.1.1 Total of bio-degradable lubricants Functional Ajukumar and Ghandi (2013)
consumption
2.1.2 Total of bio-degradable cleanser Functional Ajukumar and Ghandi (2013)
consumption
2.2 Land contamination Tactical Ajukumar and Ghandi (2013)
2.2.1 Total of bio-degradable Functional Ajukumar and Ghandi (2013)
components used
2.2.2 Total of hazardous waste Functional Liyanage et al. (2009); Raouf (2009);
Tseng et al. (2009); Chengcheng Fan et
al., (2010)
2.3 Air pollution Tactical Raouf (2009)
2.3.1 Total of greenhouse gas emission Functional Liyanage et al. (2009); Tseng et al.
(2009); Chengcheng Fan et al., (2010)
52

(continued)
Level
Social Factor
Learning and growth perspective
1 Skill improvement related to Corporate Alsyouf (2006); Tseng et al. (2009);
sustainable maintenance practices Parida (2012)
1.1 Training topics Tactical Tseng et al. (2009); Gupta et al. (2011);
Parida (2012)
1.1.1 Training hours per employee Functional Tsang et al. (1999); Pintelon and Muchiri
(2009); Raouf (2009); Chengcheng Fan
et al., (2010); Parida (2012)
2 Number of innovation carried out Corporate Alsyouf (2006); Gupta et al. (2011);
related to sustainable maintenance Parida (2012)
2.1 Innovation suggested Tactical Parida (2012)
2.1.1 Small group meetings/ team Functional (Parida and Chattopadhyay, 2007).
work
Health and safety perspective
1 Lost time injury rate Corporate Alsyouf (2006); Pintelon and Muchiri
(2009)
1.1 Recordable injury rate Tactical Parida (2012)
1.1.1 Safety attitude Functional Pintelon and Muchiri (2009)
1.1.2 Toxic spare parts Functional Liyanage et al. (2009)
1.1.3 Toxic lubricants Functional Liyanage et al. (2009); Ajukumar and
Ghandi (2013))
1.1.4 Toxic cleanser Functional Liyanage et al. (2009); Ajukumar and
Ghandi (2013)
2 Unsafe health and safety practices Corporate Parida (2012)
2.1 Physical working environment Tactical Liyanage et al. (2009)
2.1.1 Workplace noise level Functional Parida (2012)
2.1.2 Lighting and ventilation Functional Ajukumar and Ghandi (2013)
Employee satisfaction perspective
1 Employee turn-over rate Corporate Tseng et al. (2009); Chengcheng Fan et
al., (2010); Parida (2012)
1.1 Employee satisfaction rate Tactical Tseng et al. (2009); Chengcheng Fan et
al., (2010); Parida (2012)
1.1.1 Employee complaints Functional Parida (2012)
Stakeholders satisfaction perspective
1 Stakeholders - company Corporate Alsyouf (2006), Chengcheng Fan et al.,
partnership in terms of sustainable (2010)
maintenance practice
1.1 Stakeholders satisfaction rate Tactical Tsang et al. (1999); Alsyouf (2006);
Chengcheng Fan et al., (2010); Parida
(2012)
1.1.1 Stakeholders complaints Functional Parida (2012)
53
2.11 Overview of Exploratory Factor Analysis
Factor analysis is applied to meet construct validity requirements.

Exploratory R-type factor analysis is established to determine the underlying
structure among the SMP indicators and obtain the significant indicators (Hair et al.,
2010). Thus, the highly correlated indicators are grouped together and classed into
the new groups.
Determining the minimum sample size is one of the critical factors when
applying EFA. There are two methods to determine the minimum sample size of
EFA, i.e. the minimum absolute sample size and Subjects-to-Variables (STV) ratio.
According to Kline (2013), 100 subjects (minimum sample size) are required to
achieve the objective of EFA in reproducing the original correlations from the factor
loadings (free of statistical error as possible). However, the ratio of STV also is
important where the EFA is meaningless if the number of variables is more than
number of subjects. Therefore, it is needed the STV always be more than one. Kline
(2013) argued that STV ratio should be at least 2:1.
Table 2.14 presents the studies conducted by previous researchers that

applied at least STV ratio 2:1 for conducting EFA in area of maintenance,
organization performance, manufacturing industry, Malaysia, and sustainability.
54
Table 2.14: Summary of previous studies applying STV ratio > 2:1
Authors Objective Focus area Number of Sample STV
(Year) variables size
Alsyouf EFA was conducted to Maintenance, 26 112 4.3:1
(2009) identify the important Swedish
variables for maintenance industry
practices
Pariazar et EFA was conducted to Maintenance, 19 96 5.1:1
al. (2008) identify the key factors of manufacturing
maintenance strategy selection industry
Cheng and EFA was conducted in an Maintenance, 13 78 6:1
Tsao attempt to reduce evaluation case study at a
(2010) factors of rolling stock petrochemical
maintenance strategy selection plant
into in a smaller set of higher
level factors
Nezami EFA was conducted in order Maintenance, a. 10 30 a. 3:1
and to identify the important manufacturing b. 10 b. 3:1
Yildirim variables: industry
(2013) a. with respect to social
factor
b. with respect to
environmental
for selecting the appropriate
maintenance strategy
Dubey et EFA was conducted in order Organization 22 100 4.5:1
al. (2014) to obtain the important performance,
variables of firms’ Indian
competencies manufacturing
Raja EFA was conducted in an Sustainability; 37 94 2.5:1
Mamat et attempt to identify the Malaysian
al. (2016) underlying variables of each vehicle
factor of end-of-life vehicles manufacturers
management and
distributors,
part dealers,
and end-of-life
vehicle
collectors
2.12 Overview of Partial Least Squares – Structural Equation Modeling
PLS-SEM as a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) is conducted in order to

validate the results of EFA. Table 2.15 presents previous studies conducting EFA
and PLS-SEM.
55
Table 2.15: Summary of previous studies conducting EFA and PLS-SEM

Authors Objective Focus area Number of Number of Sample
(Year) constructs indicators size
Wilden et To identify the relationship Second-order 10 23 91
al. (2013) between dynamic HCM,
capabilities and organization
performance,
performance: strategy,
Australian
structure, and company.
environment.
Alolah et To establish a systematic Third-order 23 66 200

al. (2014) approach for measuring HCM, safety
Saudi school safety performance,
public sector,
performance using the
balanced
BSC framework scorecard.
philosophy.
Ram et al. To determine the Competitive 5 21 209

(2014) relationship between advantages;
critical success factors public and
utilities sector;
related to the
manufacturing,
implementation of ERP mining, and
software and the goal of automotive
competitive advantage. sector.
Ağan et al. To identify the Turkish 12 45 314

(2016) relationships between manufacturing:
corporate social finished goods
including
responsibility,
machinery,
environmental supplier automotive,
development, and firm appliances and
performance. electronics (89),
heavy industries
including metal
and construction
companies (80),
textile and
apparel
companies (78),
and chemical
and plastic
manufacturers
(67).
Raja To determine the key Sustainability; 9 33 94

Mamat et success factors in Malaysian
al. (2016) establishing end-of-life vehicle
manufacturers
vehicle management
and distributors,
system. part dealers, and
end-of-life
vehicle
collectors.
56
Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) can be categorized into Covariance

Based SEM (CB-SEM) and PLS-SEM. This research applied PLS-SEM, one of the
emerging second-generation statistical analyses (Hair et al., 2014), because this
research attempts to focus more on exploration or development of SMPM framework
and there is little previous knowledge on SMP measures. In contrast, if the theory/
model well-established and research objective is theory testing/ confirmation, then
CB-SEM is a more appropriate method for validating the theory/ model.
Secondly, formative constructs are part of the framework (Hair et al., 2011).
In this study, the SMPM framework consists of three formative constructs, i.e.
economic, environmental, and social.
Thirdly, PLS-SEM can validate very complex models while the sample sizes
are relatively small (Henseler et al., 2009). Similarly, according to Reinartz et al.
(2009), PLS-SEM has a higher statistical power (ability to identify significant
relationships that in fact exist) than CB-SEM in validating the complex model with
limited sample size and 100 observations are sufficient to achieve an acceptable
statistical power. The increasing number of indicators can compensate for the low
sample size problem (Reinartz et al., 2009). Furthermore, Hair et al., (2014)
described the guideline to determine the minimum sample size in achieving 80% of
statistical power (the commonly used of statistical power level). As described above,
this study has three formative constructs, thus 84 observations were needed to
achieve a statistical power of 80% for detecting R2 values of at least 0.25
(significance level of 1%). In this study, there are 13 constructs (SMP, 3 factors, and
9 perspectives) and 78 indicators with 101 respondents. Based on the above
explanation, the SMPM framework can be considered as a complex model and fulfill
the minimum sample size requirement. Thus, PLS-SEM is more appropriate to
achieve the robust results.
57
2.13 Overview of Analytic Hierarchy Process
The AHP method is one of the widely used Multi-Criteria Decision Making
(MCDM) approaches developed by Thomas L. Saaty in 1971, which can be applied
to different problems (Andreichicova and Andreichicov, 2013). The AHP has been
recognized as a valuable tool in prioritizing decisions when both tangible and
intangible criteria are considered (Amponsah, 2013). It offers the structure and
logical-mathematical background in an attempt to create rational decisions
(Oddershede et al., 2013). Its structure is represented by the hierarchy that
represents the decision maker understanding on the flow of influences in making
complex risky decisions (Saaty, 2008). Moreover, each problem during decision-
making process is settled by structuring it into a separate level in a hierarchical
manner, where the main goal at the top level, the number of the sets of criteria at the
intermediate level and the set of alternatives are at the bottom level (Marjani et al.,
2013).
The AHP is aimed to quantify relative priorities of a set alternative using

pairwise comparison and based on experts’ judgment (Saaty and Sodenkamp, 2010).
Furthermore, AHP is a valid approach in decision making when experts have
different backgrounds, experiences, and expectations (Smith-Perera and Figarella,
2013). AHP method has several benefits as presented in Table 2.16.
Table 2.16: The benefits of AHP method

Benefits Author
Good understandability and interpretability of the results Andreichicova and
Andreichicov (2013)
Treat the decision problem as a system which considers all of the factors Abdullah et al. (2013)
involved in a complex decision
Rapidly build consensus on goals, objectives, and priorities Saaty (2013)
Align work activities to what is important for organizational success Saaty (2013)
Improve speed and effectiveness of decision making Saaty (2013)
Improve accountability and outcomes over time Saaty (2013)
Achieve cost savings through efficient allocation of resources Saaty (2013)
58
AHP has been widely utilized for MCDM in the different field around the
world. Table 2.17 shows the summary of previous researchers using AHP approach
related to maintenance management, sustainability, performance measurement, and
Table 2.17: Summary of previous research using AHP approach

Authors (Year) Objective Focus area
Bertolini et al. (2004) Maintenance outsourcing service Maintenance management, case
selection based on three main criteria study at Italian brickworks
(industrial sector, provider, conservation
state)
HajShirmohammadi To determine the degree of Maintenance management, case
and Wedley (2004) centralization or decentralization that study at a steel company
should occur in a maintenance
organization system with respect to the
objectives of a maintenance department
Cheung et al. (2005) Selection of an optimal maintenance Maintenance management,
labor for a particular maintenance task fuzzy AHP, case study at China
based on license qualification, airline Aircraft Services Limited
company, aviation authority and (CASL) at Hong Kong
personal experience International Airport
Braglia et al. (2006) CMMS software selection based on five Maintenance management,
main criteria (cost, performance, paper industry
implementation, data management,
auxiliary characteristics)
Kodali et al. (2009) Justification of world-class maintenance Maintenance management,
systems over traditional maintenance maintenance performance
systems and total productive measures, Analytic Hierarchy
maintenance based on quantification of Constant Sum Method
performance measures (AHCSM), case study at Indian
automotive components supplier
Yang et al. (2009) To determine the weight of each Performance measurement,
criterion when generating the Taiwan wafer fabrication
performance model for manufacturing industry, hybrid method AHP/
systems ANP (Analytic Network
Process)
Chen and Wu (2010) To evaluate an automobile partnership Automotive industry
between manufacturers and distributors
Chengcheng Fan et al. Selecting indicator for measuring Sustainability, performance
(2010) sustainable manufacturing based on measurement, U.S.
three criteria (relevance, analytical manufacturing companies
soundness, measurability)
Ratnayake and Maintenance strategy selection based on Maintenance management,
Markeset (2010) financial and HSE criteria sustainability, Norwegian oil
and gas industry
Parthiban et al. (2012) To rank the supplier and found out the Indian automotive component
best supplier manufacturing industry
Hamimi Abdul Razak To determine the weight of Maintenance management,
et al. (2012) performance-shaping factors for performance measurement, case
maintenance workers evaluation study at an Malaysian electronic
packaging plant
59
Table 2.17: Summary of previous research using AHP approach (continued)

Authors (Year) Objective Focus area
Zaim et al. (2012) Maintenance strategy selection for Maintenance management, case
organizations with critical production study at a Turkey newspaper
requirements printing industry, results
comparison of AHP and ANP
method
Abdullah et al. (2013) Selecting a set of design for Sustainability
remanufacturing criteria based on four
main criteria (cost, resources and skills,
product, handling)
Ajukumar and Gandhi Manufacturing design selection based on Maintenance, sustainability,
(2013) green maintenance requirements hybrid AHP and TOPSIS
Amrina and Yusof To determine the weight of sustainable Sustainability, performance
(2013) manufacturing performance measures measurement, Malaysian
based on three pillars of sustainability automotive companies
(cost, social, environment)
Giri and Nejadhashemi Selection of agricultural best Sustainability, case study at
(2014) management practices based on three U.S. Saginaw river watershed
pillars of sustainability (environmental,
economic, and social)
Tang et al. (2015) Making maintenance decisions for oil Maintenance management,
and gas drilling and production sustainability, case study at
equipment Tarim Oilfield
Piechnicki et al. To prioritize the critical success factors Maintenance management, six
(2015) that influence TPM implementation Brazilian companies which won
during each phase of the process the award for world-class
TPM achievement
2.14 Summary
This chapter has reviewed on Malaysian automotive industry, sustainability,

maintenance management, MPM frameworks in manufacturing companies, and SMP
in manufacturing companies. The reviews revealed that maintenance function has
been transformed from a cost center into a critical part of the business process which
creates competitive advantages. As a result, maintenance requires a proper MPM
framework for planning, controlling, and improving the outcome of the maintenance
process. Many researchers have developed MPM frameworks for manufacturing
companies. Unfortunately, the proposed indicators have been focused at the
functional level only without considering its effect on the overall business strategies.
Therefore, alignment between maintenance objectives and corporate objectives has
become an important issue in developing MPM frameworks.
60
Recently, sustainability issues affect all organization functions including

maintenance management as a critical business function. It requires embedding of
maintenance performance measures from a sustainability viewpoint. Current
literature has shown a gap in knowledge in this emerging area. In responding this
issue, this research attempted to incorporate sustainable initiatives into a MPM
framework.
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
This chapter aims to explain methodology and procedures applied in

conducting this study. It describes a detail explanation of the research process and
discusses each of the research stages. This chapter begins with discussion on the
overall structure of research methodology, detail description of survey methodology,
and development of SMPM system guidelines. Eventually, the last section
summarized this chapter.
3.2 Overall Structure of Research Methodology
The overall structure of the research methodology can be divided into three
interconnected phases as shown in Figure 3.1. The first phase has three stages, i.e.
finding gap and problem, highlight the important measures as the guideline for this
study, and discuss the weaknesses of previous studies. It starts with literature study
which consists of a review on maintenance management, maintenance performance,
sustainability, and sustainable maintenance in the manufacturing field. In this phase,
the background of the research problem and the research gap were described. This
became the basis for designing and developing the study of the research. Moreover,
this phase also carried out a review of previous studies of maintenance performance
measures and sustainability measures in manufacturing sector. Next, the weaknesses
62
of the previous studies were discussed to establish the need for a balanced and
integrated SMPM system in automotive companies.
Phase I
Literature study on: (Development of Conceptual
- Maintenance performance Framework)
- Sustainability in maintenance
- Sustainable maintenance performance
Research objectives: a and b
Construct preliminary sustainable maintenance performance

measurement framework for automotive companies
Validate the proposed framework through the survey methodology

Phase II
(Validation of Preliminary
Framework through Survey
Design and develop the questionnaire
Methodology )
Research objectives: a and b

Conduct the expert validation
Identify and select companies for the pilot

and full survey
Conduct the pilot study
Conduct the full survey
Data analysis
Proposed a set of sustainable maintenance performance

measurement framework for automotive companies
Develop generic model of sustainable maintenance performance measurement system Phase III
(Development of Measurement
Determine the weight of each indicator with AHP methodology Guideline)
Research objectives: c and d
Determine the data scaling guideline
Build sustainable maintenance performance

measurement tool
Evaluate the built tool
Discussions and conclusions
Figure 3.1 The overall structure of research methodology

63
Based on the reviews of previous studies on MPM and SMPM, a preliminary

SMPM framework for automotive companies was constructed. The preliminary
framework was adopted and modified from relevant literature.
The second phase focuses on the survey methodology. This phase aims to
validate the preliminary framework in terms of importance and applicability in
industrial practices. It was composed of developing questionnaires, expert
validation, selecting the company for the pilot study and full survey, conducting the
pilot study, conducting the full survey, and analyzing data. In relation to data
analysis, the EFA and the PLS - SEM were established to fulfill reliability and
validity requirement of the data from the full survey. The survey results were used to
propose a set of SMP measures (factors, perspectives, and indicators) for Malaysian
The third phase relates to the development of SMPM system guideline. It

starts with constructing the hierarchical structure, determining the weight of each
measure using AHP method, and measuring SMP achievement.
In the last phase, a proposed SMPM system tool using Microsoft Excel was
built by designing the input, process, and output. Then, a survey-based questionnaire
was conducted in order to investigate the practicability of the tool. Next, the
discussions, conclusions of the results, and contribution to knowledge are presented.
Finally, this research provides recommendations for future research.
3.3 Survey Methodology
In order to identify the commonly used indicators and current implementation

practices of maintenance management system in Malaysian automotive industry, a
survey is carried out through a questionnaire approach. A set of the questionnaire is
developed for assessing the importance level and adaptability level of the indicators
into industry practices in measuring their maintenance performance. The survey
64
results analysis provided evidence how SMP indicators are validated in measuring
SMP in the automotive industry. The survey methodology explained in the
following section including developing the questionnaire, expert validation, pilot
study, selection of the population and sampling for conducting the full survey, data
collection and method, test of response bias, reliability and validity of the instrument,
and statistical analysis.
3.3.1 Questionnaire Development
The questionnaire is developed as a research instrument through extensive

literature review. The questionnaire was adopted and modified from relevant
literature in terms of general information, maintenance management system, scale
used, and layout (Swanson, 2001; Ahmed et al., 2004; Gaik Chin & Zameri Mat
Saman, 2004; Gomes et al., 2004; Herzog et al., 2007; Alsyouf, 2009; Chinese and
Ghirardo, 2010; Liu, 2010; Gomes et al., 2011; Olugu et al., 2011; Maletič et al.,
2012; Amrina, 2013; Sezen and Cankaya, 2013). Based on the proposed SMPM
framework, seven pages of a questionnaire was developed for measuring the
importance and applicability level of SMP indicators. The questionnaire consists of
three main sections. The first section of the questionnaire was aimed to obtain
characteristics of the respondent, i.e. position in the company and experience in the
automotive industry.
The second section strove to obtain background of the company related to

general information such as number of full-time employees, number of full-time
maintenance employees, annual financial turnover, year in automotive business,
ownership, product type, and certification that have been received. The second
section also attempted to identify the implementation of maintenance management
and SMM. Finally, this section investigated the company’s motivation in
implementing SMM system initiatives.
65
The third section was the main part of the questionnaire to perceive
perception of respondent on the importance and applicability level of 78 indicators
for assessing SMP in automotive companies. The importance level describes the
degree of importance of the indicators, while the applicability level means the
indicators can be applied or used in industrial practices (Olugu et al., 2011). The
respondents were asked to rate their perception of importance level on five-point
Likert scale ranging from one to five for not important at all to very important.
Moreover, the respondents assigned their perception of applicability level on five-
point Likert scale from one to five for very low to very high range applicability.
Dawes (2008) in his research revealed that using either five-point, seven-
point, or ten-point Likert scales are all comparable for SEM and confirmatory factor
analysis. However, the five-point Likert scale benefits the respondents due to its
simplicity for the respondents to read out and provide a complete list of scale
descriptor (Dawes, 2008). Therefore, this study applied five-point Likert scale to
conduct the survey questionnaire. As listed in Table 3.1, several previous studies
related to maintenance and sustainability area, Malaysian manufacturing and
automotive industry, or using of EFA and PLS-SEM, have employed the five-point
Likert scale.
Table 3.1: Summary of previous research using five-point Likert scale

Authors (Year) Objective Focus Area
Swanson (2001) To analyze the relationships between Maintenance, EFA, metalworking
the different maintenance practices industry.
Gaik Chin and To determine the performance Malaysian manufacturing companies.
Zameri Mat Saman measures for selecting the best
(2004) production system.
Herzog et al. To develop and validate of business Slovenian manufacturing companies,
(2007) process reengineering variables. PCA.
Alsyouf (2009) To find the factors for selecting a Maintenance, EFA, Swedish
maintenance policy. industries.
Zakuan (2009) To identify structural analysis of total Malaysian automotive companies,
quality management, ISO/TS 6949 EFA, SEM.
and organizational performance.
Maletič et al. To examine the relationship between Maintenance; manufacturing,
(2012) continuous improvement and construction, transportation and other
maintenance performance. types of Slovenian industry; PCA.
Amrina (2013) To develop the sustainable Sustainability, Malaysian automotive
manufacturing performance measures companies, EFA.
Sezen and Cankaya To investigate the influence of green Automotive, chemistry, and electronic
(2013) manufacturing and eco-innovation on sectors in Turkey.
corporate sustainability performance.
66
Table 3.1: Summary of previous research using five-point Likert scale (continued)
Authors (Year) Objective Focus Area
Alolah et al. (2014) To establish a systematic approach for EFA, PLS-SEM.
measuring Saudi school safety
performance using the BSC
framework philosophy.
Ram et al. (2014) To identify the relationship between EFA, PLS-SEM.
critical success factors related to the
implementation of ERP software and
the goal of competitive advantage
Ağan et al. (2016) To determine the relationships EFA, PLS-SEM, Turkish
between corporate social manufacturing (including
responsibility, environmental supplier automotive).
development, and firm performance.
Raja Mamat et al. To determine the key success factors Sustainability; Malaysian vehicle
(2016) in establishing end-of-life vehicle manufacturers and distributors, part
management system. dealers, and end-of-life vehicle
collectors; EFA, PLS-SEM.
3.3.2 Expert Validation
After the initial questionnaire is completed, it was sent to fifteen experts

amongst practitioners and academician worldwide for conducting content validity as
shown in Appendix A1. The covering letter is presented in Appendix A2. It aims to
ensure that the contents measure accurately as it is intended to be. The respondents
with academic background are selected based on their expertise, contribution, and
publications (Chengcheng Fan et al., 2010). In the case of this research, academic
respondents must have experience in conducting research or as a consultant in the
field of maintenance performance, sustainable performance or manufacturing
performance. Respondents from practitioner background are chosen based on their
position and number of years of experience (Olugu et al., 2011). In this research,
industrial experts should be working as General Manager/ Production Engineering
Manager/ Maintenance Manager in the automotive industry and have experience in
implementing maintenance management system or sustainable manufacturing in
automotive industry. There are 10 responses have been received with 66.67%
response rate from the experts which consisting of six and four responses from local
and international experts, respectively. The comments and feedbacks from the
experts were used to improve the quality of the questionnaire as an instrument for
conducting the survey. Evaluation form of expert is presented in Appendix A3.
67
The summary of comments and suggestions from the experts are presented in
Table 3.2. The four international experts are amongst the previous researchers who
developed the framework of maintenance performance measurement. Their works
were adopted in this research. The initial questionnaire was modified based on
comments and input from these 10 experts in term of content, wording, respondent
interest, sequence, continuity and flow, and length and time. First, Parida (2006)
recommended valuable input especially in the naming of indicators. Therefore, the
name of some indicators has been modified from theoretical term into an operational
term. Second, the definitions of maintenance management and SMM have been
provided in the modified questionnaire in order to declare the same meaning for all
respondents. Third, the position level of the indicators in section three has been
deleted from the questionnaire. Fourth, the layout of the questionnaire has been re-
designed to be more user-friendly. Finally, the final version of the questionnaire is
presented in Appendix A4.
Table 3.2: The summary of comments and suggestions from the experts
Expert Parameter Expert’s Review
International Experts
Assoc. Prof. Aditya Content Some of questions need to be more specific and
Parida and Prof. Uday measureable. Each indicators need to be tested for
Kumar SMART (i.e. Specific, Measureable, Attainable,
Realistic and Timely).
Wording - Some questions need to be modified and terms defined
to convey the same meaning for all participants.
- Suggested to provide the meaning of SMP.
Respondent - There are too many indicators. Suggested to go in for
interest less, but explain more as implementation needs to be
feasible.
- Suggested to provide a summary report to motivate
respondents to be more involved.
Sequence The sequence seems to be appropriate.
Continuity The language and meaning of some of the
and flow questionnaire needs to be modified as comments in the
questionnaire.
Length and The questionnaire is too lengthy.
time
Others - The questionnaire formulation looks interesting.
- Suggested to undertake a validation/ testing of the
questionnaire to verify the results and implementation
feasibility.
68
Table 3.2: The summary of comments and suggestions from the experts (continued)
International Experts
Prof. Dr. I.S. Jawahir Content - The questions are well throughout and they contain
several relevant aspects that need to be studied.
- The questions are very detailed.
Wording Some wording can confuse as there were no definition.
However, the survey was well abstracted.
Respondent The respondents maybe lose interest, but should not
interest worry. Please go ahead.
Sequence Good sequence.
Continuity Excellent flow.
and flow
Length and Too long, but some rewards must be considered.
time
Others Consider providing the published data, eventually.
Prof. Jayantha P. Others The questionnaire looks good and comprehensive.
Liyanage
National Experts
Zamri Isa, BSc, MBA. Content The key performance indicators are comprehensive.
However, it is suggested to be more specific.
Others Suggested to provide the definition of SMP.
Prof. Ir. Dr. Hj. Abdul Content Questions adequately address the study objectives.
Rahman Omar However, the terminologies need to be consistent.
Wording Question wording sufficient but need to improve on
the layout.
Respondent Too lengthy. It needs to improve on the format.
interest
Sequence Formatting need to be improved.
Continuity Questions have the continuity and flow but may need
and flow some encouragements to complete the whole
questionnaire.
Length and It is length and may be time consuming. Face to face
time discussion may help to capture all aspects of the
questionnaire.
Others Pilot study may help to identify improvement needed
on the questionnaire.
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Hj. Content The content is satisfactory.
Baba Md. Deros Wording The questions were worded from the respondent’s
perspective. However some of the measures need to
be split into different questions.
Respondent Respondents will not lose their interest.
interest
Sequence The background of respondent need to be moved to the
last section.
Continuity Continuity and flow is good.
and flow
Length and The questionnaire is appropriate.
time
Others Overall, it is a good survey questionnaire.
69
Table 3.2: The summary of comments and suggestions from the experts (continued)
National Experts
Prof. Dr. Ir. Erry Content - Objective of this study may still be relevant but focusing
Yulian Triblas Adesta on automotive industries needs further “customization”.
Therefore, suggested to design a semi structured
interview to get a “real feeling” of the uniqueness of this
kind of industries when compared to others.
Wording - Suggested to study more literatures related to Likert-
scale.
Respondent - The questions seem to be far too many.
interest - Suggested to design the layout of the questionnaire to be
more “user-friendly”.
Sequence - In term of arrangement it seems no problem. Suggested
to put the page number.
Continuity - This questionnaire has a good arrangement for the
and flow questions.
- Suggested to interchange between “productivity” and
“cost effectiveness”.
Length and - The questionnaire is far too long and time consuming to
time answer. It appears that the questionnaire wants to get all
information needed in one shoot.
- Suggested to put in every page the information of those
choices so that make things easier for the respondents.
Others - Suggested to accompany this questionnaire with a semi
structured interview to minimize ambiguities and to get
more specific feelings to the case being researched.
- Suggested to highlight the differences between
automotive industries with others.
Prof. Dr. Sha’ri Mohd. Content To show maintenance measures.
Yusof Wording Suggested to provide the definition of measures.
Respondent Probably the respondents are unable to understand what
interest the questionnaire requires from them.
Sequence Some of the measures seem out of scope.
Continuity Questioning the objective of having the indicator’s
and flow level.
Length and The time is sufficient.
time
Others Not that easy to understand by practitioners.
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Wong Content Commented that not all metrics have their sub-metrics,
Kuan Yew which may lead to be problematic during reliability and
validity test.
Wording The wording is generally good, but there are parts where
the English needs to be improved.
Respondent Respondent interest would depend on the actual
interest respondents.
Sequence Sequence is appropriate.
Continuity The flow is fine.
and flow
Length and The shorter time for answering will be better.
time
Others - Suggested to use five–point scale rather than four-point
scale for all section.
- Suggested to modify the name of some indicators.
Example: “increase training hours” to “number of
training hours”.
70
3.3.3 Pilot Study
According to Forza (2002), in order to test the questionnaire, a pilot survey

was carried out with a small sample size (15 respondents). The pilot survey
examines the properties of the questionnaire and viability of the survey
administration (Forza, 2002). The final draft questionnaires were submitted to 20
target respondents using a self-administrated questionnaire and the return rate is
100%. The covering letter for the pilot survey is presented in Appendix A5.
The pilot survey data was analyzed using SPSS statistical software. Table 3.3
shows the background of the company.
Table 3.3: The background of respondent

Background of Respondent Frequency Percentage
Full-time employees
Less than 51 4 20
51 to 150 14 70
More than 150 2 10
Full-time maintenance employees
Less than 5 6 30
5 to 15 14 70
The years of involved in automotive industry
Less than 5 years 6 30
5 to 10 years 11 55
More than 10 years 3 15
Ownership form
Local company 13 65
Foreign-local venture 7 35
Product type
Metal parts 4 20
Plastic parts 7 35
Electronic parts 1 5
Rubber parts 5 25
Electrical parts 3 15
Certification
ISO 9001-2008 4 20
ISO/TS 16949 16 80
The important level of maintenance management
Not important at all 0 0
Not important 0 0
Neutral 9 45
Important 10 50
Very important 1 5
71
Table 3.3: The background of respondent (continued)

Background of Respondent Frequency Percentage
The years implemented maintenance management
Less than 5 years 4 20
5 to 10 years 15 75
The type of maintenance action that most applied
Preventive maintenance 17 85
Corrective maintenance 3 15
The awareness of sustainable maintenance management concept
Very low 0 0
Low 1 5
Moderate 12 60
High 7 35
Very high 0 0
The important level of sustainable maintenance management issues
Not important at all 0 0
Not important 0 0
Neutral 12 60
Important 8 40
Very important 0 0
The years of implementing sustainable maintenance management systems
Less than 1 year 3 15
1 to 5 years 13 65
Moreover, the pilot survey was conducted to validate the 78 proposed

indicators before applying the full survey. Pilot survey results recommended that all
indicators are important in measuring SMP for automotive companies (Sari et al.,
2015) and would be retained for the full survey process.
3.3.4 Population and Sampling
The population of this study was confined to automotive related

manufacturing companies. The automotive companies were chosen as the
implementation of SMM in this industry is very crucial as highlighted in Chapter 2
(Section 2.2 and Section 2.3).
In this study, EFA and PLS-SEM were employed in analyzing phase. These
methods require the sufficient sample size to draw valid conclusions about the
72
population. Therefore, determining the sample size is very critical. The sample size
requirement for running EFA and PLS-SEM is described in the next sections.
For conducting the full survey, the database maintained by the Malaysia
Automotive Institute (MAI) and Proton Vendors Association – Member Directory
(PVAMD) were utilized. Similar with Swanson (2001) and Chinese and Ghirardo
(2010), the final questionnaires were sent to 200 automotive companies directly in an
attempt to increase the response rate. This sample size is consistent with similar
survey in Malaysian automotive companies reported in the literature where Amrina
(2013) sent the questionnaires to 200 companies and Habidin and Yusof (2013) sent
the questionnaires to 161 companies. Target respondents for the full survey were the
people related to maintenance management system, manufacturing system, health
and safety, and production system at the entire organization levels (corporate,
tactical, and functional).
3.3.5 Data Collection
The questionnaires were distributed and collected from 2 June 2014 until 24
September 2014. The covering letter for full survey is presented in Appendix A6. A
total of 141 answered questionnaires were obtained, while 40 questionnaires were
not usable due to the incomplete answers, leading to a response rate of 50.5%. This
response rate is consistent with similar survey in Malaysian automotive companies
reported in the literature (Zakuan, 2009; Salleh et al., 2012a; Amrina, 2013; Habidin
and Yusof, 2013).
3.3.6 Reliability and Validity
Reliability and validity are the main issues for measurement quality as when
they are unreliable and/ or invalid, it could lead to wrong conclusion (Forza, 2002).
Furthermore, reliability and validity procedures have to be conducted in order to
73
ensure this research meet the scientific research requirements, thus the conclusions
can be applied in the real systems (Sekaran, 2003).
The reliability indicates the ability of an instrument to measure a

phenomenon consistently (Ho, 2014). There are several methods to measure the
reliability of the instrument. Ho (2014) categorizes the methods into external
consistency procedures (test-retest and parallel forms of the same test) and internal
consistency procedures (split-half technique, Cronbach’s alpha, and item analysis).
However, for the survey research that utilizes questionnaire as an instrument, the
internal consistency procedure by using Cronbach’s alpha method is the commonly
used procedure. The internal consistency test allows identifying inconsistent items in
measuring a phenomenon (Ho, 2014). The minimum threshold value of the alpha
coefficient is 0.6 – 0.7 (Hair et al., 2010).
According to Hair et al. (2010), the validity of an instrument can be achieved

when a measure or set of measures can accurately represent the concept of interest.
Furthermore, validity of an instrument is determined by content validity and
construct validity.
Content validity, also known as face validity is assessed by expert’s

judgments in order to ensure that a measure or set of measures conforms to their
conceptual definition (Hair et al., 2010). In this study, content validity of the
questionnaire was conducted through extensive theoretical review and expert’s
validation as described in Section 3.3.2. Therefore, the questionnaire which has been
developed for this study could be accepted for the content validity.
In the next stage, construct validity shall be assessed by establishing the

convergent validity and discriminant validity. In this research, EFA and PLS-SEM
were applied in order to conduct the construct validity as described in the next
sections. Construct validity must be conducted for all measures, including new
proposed measures, or the measures which are taken from previous research (Hair et
al., 2010). According to Sekaran (2003), construct validity:
74
“testifies to how well the results obtained from the use of the measure fit the
theories around which the test was designed”.
3.3.7 Exploratory Factor Analysis
In this research, factor analysis was applied to meet construct validity

requirements. Determining the minimum sample size is one of the critical factors
when applying EFA as described in Section 2.11. Table 3.4 summarizes the
minimum sample size in factor analysis and its application in this research. This
study applied STV ratio 3.4:1, 3.9:1, and 4.6:1 for economic, environmental, and
social, respectively, in order to fulfill the minimum sample size requirement.
Therefore, it can be concluded that the sample size (101 subjects) has been applied in
this study fulfilled the minimum requirement to conduct the EFA.
Table 3.4: The minimum sample size in factor analysis and its application in this
research
No Criteria Author (Year) The application in this research
1 General requirement: the subjects - Hair et al. - Economic factor
(S) should be more than variables (2010) Subjects: 101
(V) - Kline Variables: 30
(2013) - Environmental factor
Subjects: 101
Variables: 26
- Social factor
Subjects: 101
Variables: 22
(for all cases S > V)
2 The minimum absolute sample - Ho (2014) The sample size in this research was
size should be 100 subjects - Kline 101 subjects for all economic,
(2013) environmental, and social factors.
3 STV ratio should be at least 2:1 Kline (2013) - STV on economic factor was
101:30 = 3.4:1
- STV on environmental factor was
101:26 = 3.9:1
- STV on social factor was
101:22 = 4.6:1
75
Figure 3.2 describes the six stages in the EFA process. Before conducting
EFA, the researcher needs to meet the conceptual and statistical requirements. In this
study, conceptual requirements have been fulfilled by extensive literature reviews
and experts validation. However, correlation matrix, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of
sampling adequacy (KMO) and Bartlett’s test of sphericity were applied to prove the
appropriateness of the factor analysis application in terms of statistical requirements
(Hair et al., 2010; Coakes, 2013).
Stage 1: Proving the conceptual requirement by previous studies and experts validation
Stage 2: Proving the statistical requirement

1. Correlation between indicators should be higher than 0.3 (Hair et al., 2010; Coakes, 2013).
2. Measure of sampling adequacy (MSA) values should be higher than 0.6 (Raykov and Marcoulides, 2008).
3. Bartlett's test is significant (p < 0.001) (Hair et al., 2010; Ho, 2014).
3: Determining the extraction method
4: Determining the number of factors to be extracted by three criterion

1. Priori criterion.
2. Latent roots criterion.
3. Percentage of variance criterion. Cumulative variance should be higher than 60% (Hair et al., 2010).
5: Determining the rotational method
6: Interpreting the rotated factor matrix
1. Factor loadings (correlation) for each indicator on its respective sub factor should be higher than 0.5
(Hair et al., 2010).
2: Communalities should be higher than 0.5 to achieve acceptable level of explanation (Hair et al., 2010).
Figure 3.2 The stages of EFA (Hair et al., 2010)
According to Ho (2014), based on the main objective of the research, there

are two extraction methods of EFA in order to obtain the factor solutions: principal
76
components analysis and common factor analysis. This study applied Principal
Components Analysis (PCA) since data reduction is its main objective. PCA as a
data reduction method enables to reduce the complexity of the interrelationships
among indicators to a smaller number of factors (Raykov and Marcoulides, 2008).
Moreover, PCA also provides the first view of the natural data structure.
The conceptual foundation and empirical evidence have to be considered in

determining the number of factors which need to be extracted in order to ensure that
the best structure is identified (Hair et al., 2010). This research applied three
criterions to determine the number of factors to be extracted: a priori criterion, latent
roots criterion, and percentage of variance criterion. At the first stage, a priori
criterion was used. This study proposed 3 factors and 8 sub-factors (perspectives).
Next, perspectives have to be extracted to fulfill the empirical evidence. Hence, only
the perspectives having latent roots or eigenvalues greater than one and achieving
60% or higher of total variance extracted by successive perspectives are considered
significant.
In EFA method, un-rotated factor matrix is computed as an initial solution. It

represents the factor loadings for each indicator on each perspective. However, the
initial factor matrix needs to be rotated in order to reduce some of the ambiguities
that often accompany initial solutions. In this research, the orthogonal method with
varimax rotation conducted to rotate the initial factor matrix because the main
objective of this research is data reduction (Hair et al., 2010). Varimax, as a widely
used rotational technique, will minimize the complexity of perspectives by
maximizing the variance of loading on each perspective (Tabachnick and Fidell,
2007).
There are two criteria for interpreting the rotated factor matrix namely factor
loadings and communalities. Factor loadings are the correlation between indicator
and perspective which it represents. Factor loadings should be higher than 0.5 in
order to ensure the practical significance (Hair et al., 2010). Next, communalities of
each indicator should be identified to determine whether the indicators meet the
77
minimum acceptable level of explanation which is 0.5 (Hair et al., 2010). Only those
indicators that meet the criteria will be retained.
3.3.8 Partial Least Squares – Structural Equation Modeling
In this research, EFA was followed by PLS-SEM as a CFA as described in

Section 2.12.
3.3.8.1 Hierarchical Component Model
In this research SMPM framework conceptualizes as a reflective, third-order

Hierarchical Component Model (HCM) which is presented in Figure 3.3. This
model will affect the evaluation process needed. PLS-SEM assessment is divided
into two evaluation stages processes, i.e. measurement model evaluation and
structural model evaluation. The detail explanation is provided in the box of process
flow in Figure 3.4.
(a) Measurement Model Evaluation
Measurement model evaluation needs to be assessed in terms of importance

and level of applicability. Since this model is a reflective mode (each of the
constructs is measured by reflective indicators), it needs to be measured by its
reliability and validity as described in Figure 3.4.
Firstly, the indicator loadings were determined. This model used the repeated
indicators approach in establishing the HCM, thus each indicator was used three
times. Consequently, each indicator has three loadings values, i.e. primary loadings
on the first-order construct, secondary loadings on the second-order construct, and
tertiary loadings on the third-order construct, respectively (Wetzels et al., 2009).
Moreover, all the indicator loadings should be above the minimum required value of
0.4 (Hair et al., 2014).
78
Cost Effectiveness
Quality Economic
Productivity
Resource Efficiency
Sustainable
Environmental Maintenance
Performance
Pollution and Waste
Learning and
Growth
Health and Safety
Social
Employee
Satisfaction
Stakeholder
Satisfaction
First-order Second-order Third-order

(perspectives) (factors) (SMP Framework)
Figure 3.3 Conceptual representation of third-order Hierarchical Component Model

(HCM) for SMPM framework
79
Stage 1: Measurement Model Evaluation

1. Indicator reliability: all the indicator loadings (primary loadings, secondary loadings and tertiary loadings)
should be higher than 0.4.
2. Internal consistency reliability: composite reliability of all constructs (first-order constructs, second-order
constructs and third-order constucts) should be higher than 0.7.
3. Convergent validity: the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) of all constructs (first-order constructs, second-
order construct s and third-order constucts) should be higher than of 0.5 .
4. Discriminant validity: (first-order constructs only).
- Fornell-Larcker criterion: the square root of each construct’s AVE should be higher than its highest
correlation with any other construct.
- Cross loadings: an indicator’s loadings on the associated construct should be higher than all of its
loadings on other constructs.
Stage 2: Structural Model Evaluation
1. The significance of the path coefficients: critical t-values for a two-tailed test are 1.65 (significance level =
10 percent), 1.96 (significance level = 5 percent), and 2.58 (significance level = 1 percent).
2. The coefficient of determination (R2 value): R2 values of 0.75, 0.50 and 0.25 for endogenous constructs in
the structural model can be described as substantial, moderate and weak, respectively.
Figure 3.4 The evaluation processes for a reflective, third-order HCM (Hair et al.,
2014)
Secondly, composite reliability was evaluated. Since the second-order

constructs and the third-order constructs have the reflective measurement model, all
reliability and validity criteria must be applied as well as the first-order constructs.
The exception is a discriminant validity to be applied for the first-order constructs
only (Hair et al., 2014). The composite reliability of all constructs should be higher
than 0.7 (the minimum threshold value), which indicate all constructs have high
levels of internal consistency reliability (Hair et al., 2011).
Thirdly, convergent validity of all constructs (first-order constructs, second-

order constructs, and third-order constructs) was identified. The Average Variance
Extracted (AVE) of all constructs should be higher than of 0.5 (Hair et al., 2011).
Fourthly, discriminant validity for all first-order constructs was examined in

order to test that the constructs are sufficiently different from each other. There are
two measures that need to be applied in examining discriminant validity, i.e. the
80
Fornell-Larcker criterion and cross loadings (Hair et al., 2011). The Fornell-Larcker
criterion is fulfilled if the square root of each construct’s AVE is greater than its
highest correlation with any other construct. The additional support test for
discriminant validity is cross-loadings where an indicator’s loadings on the
associated construct should be higher than all of its loadings on other constructs.
(b) Structural Model Evaluation
The main evaluation criteria to assess the structural model are the
significance of the path coefficients and the coefficient of determination (R2 value).
Wetzels et al. (2009) proposed the path coefficients approach to evaluate the
reflective constructs in the HCM, but this approach can be applied to evaluate the
mix of reflective and formative constructs in the HCM. This study proposed the mix
of reflective and formative constructs in building the SMPM framework. The
reflective relationship was established between the first-order constructs and the
second-order constructs, whereby the relationship between the second-order
constructs and the third-order construct was described as a formative relationship.
The next important criteria to evaluate the structural model are the coefficient
of determination (R2 value). Ringle et al. (2012) stated that R2 value is the
commonly used criteria by previous researchers to describe the model’s ability in
predicting the endogenous construct. PLS-SEM aims at maximizing the level of
predictive accuracy of the endogenous constructs, thus the objective is high R2
values. According to Hair et al. (2011) the R2 values of 0.75, 0.50, and 0.25 for
endogenous constructs in the structural model can be described as substantial,
moderate, and weak, respectively.
81
3.4 Developing Sustainable Maintenance Performance Measurement

Guideline
After conducting the EFA and PLS-SEM, this research proposed the SMPM
framework for Malaysian automotive companies. In the next phase, this research
developed measurement guideline for implementing SMPM. First, the weight of
each measure was specified. According to Zhang et al. (2012) there are three
commonly used methods to determine the weight of each indicator, i.e. equal
weighting, subjective weighting, and weighting from analytical approaches like
AHP. This research applied AHP methodology through pair-wise comparison to
calculate the relative weights of the SMP factors, perspectives, and indicators.
Results from AHP methodology (weight of measures) are very useful. It

enables the practitioners to make the optimum and accurate decisions related to
assets and facilities management. Thus, practitioners know which measures are
having the absolutely crucial effect to corporate objectives.
To get the final result of SMPM, it is required to determine the data scaling
guideline and normalization because of inconsistencies of measurements units.
Normalization process converts the physical measurement into dimensionless scores
(Zhang et al., 2012).
3.4.1 Developing Analytic Hierarchy Process Questionnaire
The AHP questionnaire was designed using a pairwise comparison to

determine the weights of SMP measures for automotive companies. Pairwise
comparison is applied to specify how important is one variable to other (relative
important). The questionnaire consists of six main sections. The first section
attempted to obtain general information related to expert’s name, name of the
company, position, experience, and area of expertise.
82
The second section described the scale used in this questionnaire. The
Saaty’s nine-point scale ranging from one to nine for equally important to extreme
important was applied to identify the preferences of the respondent (Saaty, 2008). In
the third section, the guideline for answering the questionnaire was provided.
Section four until six are the main parts of the survey. In these sections,
experts specified their perception on the relative importance amongst factors of the
SMPM system, the relative importance amongst perspectives of the SMP factors, and
the relative importance amongst indicators of the SMP perspectives for the
automotive industry, respectively. The final version of the questionnaire for
conducting the AHP survey is given in Appendix A7.
3.4.2 Conducting Analytic Hierarchy Process Survey
Initially, a letter (see Appendix A8) or an email was sent to each expert in
order to invite them to participate in AHP survey in mid of April 2015. The
materials for conducting the survey were also attached in describing an overview of
the study. The final AHP questionnaires were sent to target experts using a self-
administrated questionnaire. The target experts for the survey were the industrial
experts that have minimum 5 years’ experience related to maintenance management
system, manufacturing system, health and safety, and production system. After
completing the questionnaire, the expert was required to attach the name card and put
the company’s stamps on the questionnaire as evidence.
Some of the experts gave the explanation and suggestion about SMM system
during the AHP survey session. The expert’s input was taken into consideration as
important value to this research. After some of reminder by the use of telephone
calls and emails, a total of 15 completed responses were received. Four experts from
SIRIM were involved in developing SIRIM’s Total Productive Maintenance (TPM)
certification and recognition scheme. The background of the experts is shown in
Table 3.5.
83
Table 3.5: The background of the experts

Initial Years of
No Company Name Designation Expertise Area
Name Experience
1 ZBI Delloyd Industries Production 14 years Production engineering,
Sdn. Bhd. Engineering planning, maintenance,
Department Manager cost of maintenance and
investment
2 HH Proton Sdn. Bhd. Section Manager 16 years Total productive
maintenance audit
system, production
engineering, supply
chain, vendor supply
assurance
3 AR Sirim Training Head of Quality, 19 years Total productive
Services Sdn. Bhd. Environment, Safety maintenance audit
and Health System system, quality,
Section maintenance,
productivity
4 KMJ Sirim Training Principal Consultant 5 years Total productive
Services Sdn. Bhd. maintenance audit
system, quality
5 KL Sirim Training Executive 5 years Total productive
system, quality
management systems
6 AK Sirim Training Senior Consultant 12 years Total productive
system
7 HA Recomtec Sdn. General Manager 15 years Business development,
Bhd. production,
maintenance, vendor
development
8 AAA Recomtec Sdn. Production Executive 7 years Production, health,
Bhd. of Safety and Health safety
Coordinator
9 MA Azman Hamzah Senior Operation 20 years Production engineering,
Plastik Sdn. Bhd. Manager maintenance, planning
10 RBH Sheikh Brothers Head of Department 15 years Production,
Industries Sdn. Production maintenance
Bhd.
11 KA Sheikh Brothers Operation Manager 15 years Management systems,
Industries Sdn. production,
Bhd. maintenance
12 ABS Moca Plastic Head of Department 20 years Production,
Industries Sdn. Production maintenance
Bhd.
13 PBG Moca Plastic Factory Manager 25 years Manufacturing system
Industries Sdn.
Bhd.
14 AA Industrial Quality Manager of 10 years Production engineering,
Management Sdn. Production, Planning maintenance, planning
Bhd. and Engineering
Department
15 MH Industrial Quality Executive of 10 years Production engineering,
Management Sdn. Production, Planning maintenance, planning
Bhd. and Engineering
Department
84
3.4.3 Analytic Hierarchy Process Procedures
In the next step, the results of AHP survey are calculated to specify the
weight of SMP measures. The procedure for applying AHP method is described in
Figure 3.5.
Hierarchical structure
Pairwise comparison
Consistency check of each pairwise comparison
Relative weight calculation
Ranking the critical criteria
Figure 3.5 The procedure for AHP method (Saaty and Sodenkamp, 2010)
3.4.3.1 Hierarchical Structure
AHP is one of the MCDM robust methods when dealing with the multiple
conflicting objectives, perspectives, and stakeholders (HajShirmohammadi and
Wedley, 2004). AHP method enables to simplify the complex decision by
structuring the problems into hierarchical manner. The hierarchy is structured into
three main levels, i.e. overall objective, criteria, and alternatives. The overall
objective needs to be defined at the first step and presented at the top level (first
level). The criteria contributing to the main objective are placed at the intermediate
level (second level). Finally, the decision alternatives are presented at the lowest
level (third level). The hierarchical structure of a decision problem is presented in
Figure 3.6.
85
The overall objective
Criteria
Criteria 1 Criteria 2 Criteria 3 Criteria... n
Sub-criteria...n
Alternatives Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative... n
Figure 3.6 The hierarchical structure of decision problem
3.4.3.2 Pairwise Comparison
The pairwise comparison (judgment) is conducted to determine the relative

importance of the criteria with respect to the element within the higher level as the
objective (Braglia et al., 2006). The simple pairwise comparison in AHP method
focuses on just comparing two elements at the same time. The relative importance
criteria are specified using Saaty’s nine-point scale as presented in Table 3.6.
Table 3.6: Scale of measurement in pair-wise comparisons (Saaty, 2008)

Intensity of Definition Explanation
Importance
1 Equally importance Two measures contribute equally to the objective
3 Moderate Experience and judgment slightly favour one

importance measure over another
5 Strong importance Experience and judgment strongly favour one

measure over another
7 Very strong A measure is favoured very strongly over another and

importance its dominance demonstrated in practice
9 Extreme The evidence favouring one measure over another is

importance of the highest possible order of affirmation
2,4,6,8 Intermediate values Used to represent compromise between the

preferences listed above
Reciprocals If measure i has one of the above numbers assigned

to it when compared with measure j, then j has the
reciprocal value when compared with i
86
3.4.3.3 Consistency Check of each Pairwise Comparison
In the next step, Consistency Ratio (CR) needs to be calculated in order to

ensure the consistency of judgments (Saaty, 2008). The consistency represents the
goodness of judgment which is a unique feature of the AHP method (Braglia et al.,
2006). Saaty and Sodenkamp (2010) proposed the acceptable CR value for different
matrix sizes as presented in Table 3.7.
Table 3.7: CR value for different matrix sizes (Saaty and Sodenkamp, 2010)
Matrix Size CR Value
3-by-3 0.05
4-by-4 0.08
larger matrices 0.10
The relative weight is valid if the consistency level falls into the acceptable
range. If the consistency level is out of the range, the researcher can execute three
things as described below (Saaty, 2008):
i. Find the most inconsistent judgment in the pairwise comparison matrix.
ii. Determine the range of values to which that judgment can be changed in
aiming to improve the consistency level.
iii. Ask the judge to reconsider his judgment to a plausible value in that range. If
the judge is unwilling, the researcher can proceed to the second most
inconsistent judgment and so on.
The CR is calculated as the following steps as presented in Table 3.8. The

example of calculation is presented in Section 5.3.3.
87
Table 3.8: The CR calculation steps (Saaty, 2008)

Step Process
1 Build a normalized comparison matrix (A1) from the comparison matrix (A).
Determine the relative importance weights matrix (W) by averaging of each row of the
2
normalized matrix (A1).
Calculate a new vector (A2) by multiplying the pairwise comparison matrix (A) by the
3
eigenvector or the relative weights matrix (W).
Calculate the eigenvalue (A3) by dividing the vector (A2) by its corresponding element in
4
vector (W).
5 Calculate the maximum eigenvalue (λmax) by averaging the numbers in vector (A3).
Compute the consistency index (CI) for a matrix of size n according to the formula:
6 CI 
 max  n 
n  1
Calculate the consistency ratio (CR) using the formula:
CI
CR 
7 RI
where RI is a known random consistency index for the matrix size n. Table 3.9 shows the
value of the random index (RI).
Table 3.9: Random index (Saaty and Sodenkamp, 2010)

n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
RI 0 0 0.52 0.89 1.11 1.25 1.35 1.40 1.45 1.49 1.52 1.54 1.56 1.58 1.59
3.4.3.4 Relative Weight Calculation
After the pairwise comparison (judgment) matrix is developed, the priority

vector needs to be calculated to specify the relative weight of the element. This is
done by evaluating the normalized eigenvector of the matrix (Braglia et al., 2006).
The example of calculation is presented in Section 5.3.3.
3.5 Verifying the Sustainable Maintenance Objectives
This study also verified the relationship among sustainable maintenance

objectives at the corporate level through a survey questionnaire as given in Appendix
A9. The questionnaires were sent to target experts using a self-administrated
questionnaire. The covering letter for this survey is presented in Appendix A10.
The target experts for the survey were the industrial experts that have minimum 5
years’ experience related to maintenance management system, manufacturing
system, health and safety, and production system. After completing the
88
questionnaire, the expert was required to attach the name card and put the company’s
stamps on the questionnaire as evidence.
After some reminder through telephone calls and emails, a total of five
completed responses were received in mid of September 2015. The background of
the experts is shown in Table 3.10.
Table 3.10: The background of the experts

Initial Years of
No Company Name Designation Expertise Area
Name Experience
1 ZBI Delloyd Industries Production 14 years Production engineering,
Sdn. Bhd. Engineering planning, maintenance,
Department Manager cost of maintenance and
investment
2 HH Proton Sdn. Bhd. Section Manager 16 years Total productive
maintenance audit
systems, production
engineering, supply
chain, vendor supply
assurance
3 AR Sirim Training Head of Quality, 19 years Total productive
Services Sdn. Bhd. Environment, Safety maintenance audit
and Health System systems, quality,
Section maintenance,
productivity
4 KMJ Sirim Training Principal Consultant 5 years Total productive
systems, quality
5 KL Sirim Training Executive 5 years Total productive
systems, quality
management systems
3.6 Developing Sustainable Maintenance Performance Measurement Tool
According to Kans and Ingwald (2008), an organization needs the suitable

data and information from another function to observe the impact of maintenance
performance on overall business strategies. It is also required during the decision-
making process. To do that, MPM needs an appropriate CMMS tool. The CMMS is
an important tool for reaching maintenance efficiency and effectiveness (Kans,
2008). The CMMS converts maintenance input data into proper information for
decision making in maintenance (Uysal and Tosun, 2012).
89
This research developed a Microsoft Excel-based tool for SMPM system in

order to enhance operability, where the flowchart is presented in Figure 3.7. It is
strongly believed that this tool enables to facilitate decision-makers to get real-time
information. It will result in the effective and efficient decisions, within a short and
limited time. It also enables the company to compare performance within a company
and between different companies over time (Jasiulewicz-Kaczmarek and Drozyner,
2011).
Build Sustainable Maintenance Performance Measurement Tool
Rating the score of indicators
Calculating the performance score of perspectives,

factors, and sustainable maintenance practices
Classifying the performance level
Tool evaluation
Figure 3.7 Flowchart of Microsoft Excel development process
3.6.1 Build Sustainable Maintenance Performance Measurement Tool
The process of build SMPM tool is divided into 3 processes and they are as
follows.
i. Rating the score of SMP indicators
The first process in building the SMP is to rate the score of indicators at the
corporate level, tactical level, and functional level. Rating process requires
90
normalization process because of inconsistencies of measurements units.

Normalization process converts the physical measurement into dimensionless scores
(Zhang et al., 2012). In this research, the indicators were rated by applying a five-
point Likert scale where 1 = low performance, 3 = moderate performance and 5 =
high performance (Yang et al., 2009).
ii. Calculating the performance score of sustainable maintenance practices
In this research, the performance score of perspectives, factors, and overall

sustainable maintenance practices was computed using a Microsoft Excel-based
application.
iii. Classifying the performance level
The performance score is used to identify the current performance and actions
needed in achieving the sustainable maintenance status. In this research, the
performance score is classified into four performance levels; excellent, good, fair,
and poor. Moreover, a signaling system was proposed as a visual communication to
support management in monitoring sustainable maintenance practices. Visual
communication as a low-cost technique enables to share the information quickly and
accurately, thus the management can make quality decision (Yang et al., 2009).
Table 3.11 presents the performance level and signaling system of SMP.
Table 3.11: Performance level and signaling system of SMP (Yang et al., 2009)
Score Performance Signal Explanation
Level
Performance exceeds expectation and needs to be
4.001 – 5.000 Excellent Blue
maintained.
Performance meets expectation and can be further
3.001 – 4.000 Good Green
improved by routine actions.
Performance falls slightly below expectation and
2.001 – 3.000 Fair Yellow
corrective action needs to be taken by small-scale project.
Performance falls well below expectation and corrective
0.000 – 2.000 Poor Red
action needs to be taken immediately.
91
3.6.2 Tool Evaluation
In its following stage, this research conducted the evaluation process through
a survey-based questionnaire in order to investigate the practicability of the created
Microsoft Excel-based tool. The tool was evaluated in two Malaysian automotive
companies namely Proton and Perodua. The evaluation was started by delivering a
presentation to the respondents concerning on how the tool is developed and
operated. In the next step, the respondents were requested to get the experience in
running the tool. Finally, the respondents were inquired to give the feedback by
filling out a simple questionnaire as presented in Appendix A11. The covering letter
for this survey is presented in Appendix A12.
The questionnaire consists of three main sections. The first section of the
questionnaire was aimed to obtain characteristic of the respondent. In the second
section, the respondent was asked to rate their perception related to practicability of
the tool on five-point Likert scale ranging from one to five for strongly not believe to
strongly believe (Amrina, 2013). Finally, in the third section, the respondent was
requested to write down the general comments regarding the developed tool. The
background of the respondents is presented in Table 3.12.
Table 3.12: The background of the respondents

Initial Company Years of
No Designation Expertise Area
Name Name Experience
1 AHB Perodua Vendor 8 years Total productive
Manufacturing Engineering maintenance audit system,
Sdn. Bhd. Department lean production system
2 HZZKM Proton Sdn. Vendor Supply 6 years Total productive
Bhd. Assurance Group maintenance audit system,
Technical lean production system,
Procurement supply chain, vendor
supply assurance
92
3.7 Summary
This chapter has described the overall research methodology applied in this
study in order to fulfill the research objectives. The first stage is constructing a
preliminary SMPM framework for automotive companies based on previous studies.
The second step is validating the initial framework through survey methodology.
The survey through a self-administrated questionnaire applied in order to confirm the
importance and adaptability of the preliminary framework based on industry
practices point of view. The EFA and PLS-SEM were established to prove reliability
and validity of the survey data. Thus, the survey results were authorized to use in
proposing a set of SMP measures for Malaysian automotive companies. The next
step is to develop SMPM guideline. The AHP method was used to determine the
relative importance of SMP factors, perspectives, and indicators, respectively.
Moreover, the data scaling guideline was established. In the last phase, Microsoft
Excel-based tool was built as a tool for SMPM system. Then, a survey-based
questionnaire was conducted in order to investigate the practicability of the tool.
Finally, the methodology has been described in detail. Results and discussion that
follow this methodology are described in the next chapters. List of applied analysis
and methodology for fulfilling the research objectives is presented in Table 3.13.
93
Table 3.13: Summary of methodology and analytical tool

Analytical
No Research Question Research Objective Methodology
Method/ Tool
1 a. How to embed a. To develop a set - Constructed - EFA
sustainability balanced and preliminary SMPM - PLS-SEM
issues into a integrated of SMP framework for
MPM framework? measures (factors, automotive
b. What are the SMP perspectives, and companies by
measures which indicators) for adapting and
can be applied for automotive modifying the
automotive companies. relevance previous
companies? (literature)
frameworks.
- Validated the
preliminary
framework through
survey methodology
- Proposed a balanced
and integrated SMP
framework
2 c. How does b. To develop a - Proposed SMP AHP
maintenance SMPM framework in a
management framework that hierarchical manner
contribute to a allows the linking by defining indicators
company's for strategy to at three organization
competitive operational or levels (corporate,
strategies? functional level. tactical, and
functional)
3 d. What measures of c. To identify the - Determined the AHP
SMP that will critical measures weight of factors,
contribute in achieving perspectives, and
significantly to overall company indicators through
business objectives. pairwise comparison.
strategies?
4 e. How the d. To develop a - Determined the data Microsoft
automotive measurement scaling guideline and Excel
companies system with a calculation process
measure the level guideline of - Proposed
of implementation SMPM for performance level
of sustainable automotive and signaling system
maintenance? companies. - Developed a
Microsoft Excel-
based tool
CHAPTER 4
SURVEY RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
4.1 Introduction
This chapter presents results of the statistical analysis of the data from the full
survey. The verified results were then used to propose the SMPM framework for
Malaysian automotive companies. The analysis starts with a general description of
the respondent companies. This is followed by the results and analysis of company’s
motivation in implementing SMM. The next section analyzes the results of the
reliability test. Furthermore, the results of EFA and the PLS-SEM are summarized
and analyzed to prove the requirement for validity test of the data. The results of
verified SMP indicators and their operational definitions are presented in the
following section. Finally, the last section presents general conclusions and findings
gathered from the full survey process.
4.2 General Description of Respondents
The general information of the respondent companies is the first aspect

described below. This section is intended to describe the information about the
company in general. The detail information for general information of the
respondent companies is presented in Appendix B1.
The number of full-time employees determines the size of company, thus

they can be categorized into small, medium, and large. The definitions of company
95
size in Malaysia are referred to the definition that has been issued by Secretariat
Bank Negara Malaysia to National SME Development Council (2005).
Consequently, the company which has the number of full-time employees less than
51, 51 to 150, and more than 150 is considered as a small, medium, and large
company, respectively. Figure 4.1 presents the percentage of full-time employees of
the respondent companies. The respondents in this full survey are mainly amongst
medium size companies (48.5%) which have 51 to 150 full-time employees.
Moreover, 68% of the respondent companies have less than five full-time
maintenance employees as described in Figure 4.2.
9.9%
41.6%
48.5%
Full time employees less

than 51
Full time employees 51
to 150
Full time employees
more than 150
Figure 4.1 The percentage of full-time employees
9.0%
23.0%
68.0%
Maintenance employees
less than 5
5 to 15
more than 15
Figure 4.2 The percentage of full-time maintenance employees

96
Figure 4.3 presents the percentage of years the respondent companies were
involved in the automotive industry. The results indicated the experience and
maturity of the companies in automotive industry. Out of all respondents, 28.7%
companies have been in automotive operation for 5 to 10 years, and 33.7% for more
than 10 years.
33.7% 37.6%
Less than 5 years
5 to 10 years
More than 10 years
28.7%
Figure 4.3 The years of involved in automotive industry
The next question in this full survey revealed the ownership status of the
respondent companies. Majority of the respondent companies are owned by
Malaysian (69.3%) as presented in Figure 4.4.
19.8%
10.9%
Nature
69.3%
Local company
Foreign company
Foreign-local venture
Figure 4.4 Breakdown of companies with respect to ownership

97
Figure 4.5 shows the manufacturing products produced by the respondent

companies. 41.1% of the respondent companies produce metal parts, 23.2% produce
plastic parts, 16.1% produce rubber parts, 8.9% produce electronic parts, and 8%
produce electrical parts. This configuration indicates that the respondents are
representative of automotive industry population.
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Metal Plastic Rubber Electronic Electrical Others
parts parts parts parts parts
Figure 4.5 The types of products
In terms of compliance to standards, all respondent companies have at least

one certification as presented in Figure 4.6. 56 of 101 the respondent companies
(44.8%) are certified to ISO 9001 which is related to quality management systems
implementation. Furthermore, 39 of 101 (31.2%) respondent companies are certified
to ISO 14001 which deals with the implementation of environmental management
system in the company. According to González et al. (2008), Comoglio and Botta
(2012), ISO 14001 is an important tool in supporting environmental management
implementation level, especially in automotive companies. 29 of 101 respondent
companies (23.2%) are certified to ISO/TS 16949. These certifications indicate that
the respondent companies have a good standard practice in the automotive industry.
However, in terms of compliance with asset management systems implementation,
there are no automotive companies having ISO 55001. Good maintenance
management practices are the crucial factor in attempting to get the certifications,
thus the four goals of an integrated manufacturing system to be zero defects, zero
accidents, zero breakdowns, and zero dirt can be achieved (Bamber et al., 2002).
98
0.8%
23.2%
44.8%
31.2%
System
ISO 9001
ISO 14001
ISO/TS 16949
Others
Figure 4.6 Standardization system adopted
The three next questions revealed the maintenance management issues and
implementation in automotive companies as shown in Figure 4.7 to Figure 4.9.
55.4% of the respondent companies stated that maintenance management issues are
important to their company’s performance. 42.6% of the respondent companies have
implemented maintenance management systems in delivering their daily activities for
5 to 10 years and 35.6% of the respondent companies have done so for more than 10
years. Furthermore, 62.4% of the respondent companies applied preventive
maintenance (used based maintenance and time based maintenance) in executing
their maintenance strategy. Based on the above information, it can be concluded that
most of the respondent companies have considered maintenance management as a
critical business function to enhance company’s performance. The results are similar
to Ahuja and Khamba (2008).
99
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Not important Not important Neutral Important Very
at all important
Figure 4.7 Level of importance of maintenance management issues
21.8%
35.6%
Less than 5 years
5 to 10 years
More than 10 years
42.6%
Figure 4.8 Number of years of implementing maintenance management systems
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Breakdown or Preventive Predictive Total Productive
corrective Maintenance
Figure 4.9 Types of maintenance strategies applied

100
Lastly, the respondent companies were asked about SMM (see Figures 4.10
to 4.12). 47.5% of the respondent companies stated that awareness of the concept
SMM systems amongst the employees is at a moderate level. Similarly, 47.5% of the
respondent companies considered SMM issues is important to improve company’s
performance which is slightly above than 42.6% respondent companies have
considered this issue is at a neutral level. These facts indicate that SMM systems are
not considered as a crucial part in Malaysian automotive companies. This is
supported by the result that 44.6% of the respondent companies only attempt to
implement the SMM systems between 1 to 5 years. Thus, the Malaysian automotive
companies need to incorporate SMM issues in their business strategies aligned NAP
2014 in responding to the global competitive pressure.
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Very low Low Moderate High Very high
Figure 4.10 Awareness of sustainable maintenance systems concept
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Not Not Neutral Important Very
important at important important
all
Figure 4.11 Level of importance of sustainable maintenance management issues

101
31.7% 23.8%
Less than 1 years

1 to 5 years
More than 5 years
44.6%
Figure 4.12 Number of years of implementing SMM systems
4.3 Results of Sustainable Maintenance Management Systems Initiatives
Section 2.4 of the survey questionnaire attempted to identify company’s

motivations in implementing SMM system’s initiatives. A five-point Likert scale
ranging from one to five for strongly disagree to strongly agree was used to specify
the perceived perception on the listed of SMM motivations. The mean values for the
motivations ranged from 3.51 to 3.82 as presented in Table 4.1 (see Appendix B2).
Table 4.1: Motivations in implementing SMM

Motivations Mean Rank
Company’s image 3.82 1
Market competitiveness 3.66 2
International environmental standards 3.66 2
Cost benefits 3.66 2
Customer demand 3.59 3
Government environmental regulations 3.52 4
Stakeholder’s environmental pressure 3.51 5
The results found that company’s image was considered as the strongest
motivation in implementing SMM for Malaysian automotive companies. It is
followed by market competitiveness, international environmental standards, and cost
benefits motivation. This fits with the finding of Magrini and Lins (2007) that
institutional image as the main factor has forced the company to take environmental
initiatives, especially in high-risk manufacturing. Additionally, an institutional
image is one of the most important intangible assets will lead the company to create
competitive advantage (Magrini and Lins, 2007). Similarly, Wagner (2007)
102
investigated the association of the integration environmental management and other

managerial functions with four drivers of economic performance (market-related,
image-related, efficiency-related, and risk-related) in eight European countries
representing almost 2100 firm. It was found that image-related issues have the
strongest association.
4.4 Reliability Test
The reliability test of importance level was performed for 78 SMP indicators,
which were divided into eight sub-factors/ perspectives. Alpha value of cost
effectiveness perspective is 0.963. It showed high overall internal consistency
among 14 indicators of cost effectiveness perspective. Thus, 14 indicators of cost
effectiveness perspectives were retained for validity analysis. Omitting any of the
indicators will reduce the overall alpha value as described by the column Cronbach’s
Alpha if Item Deleted, which is described in Appendix B3. The summary of
reliability analysis for eight SMP perspectives is presented in Table 4.2.
Table 4.2: Results of internal consistency analysis (importance level)

Perspectives Number of Items Alpha Value Item for Deletion
P1. Cost effectiveness 14 0.963 None
P2. Quality 8 0.957 None
P3. Productivity 8 0.960 None
P4. Environmental 26 0.956 None
P5. Learning and growth 6 0.941 None
P6. Health and safety 10 0.977 None
P7. Employee satisfaction 3 0.945 None
P8. Stakeholders satisfaction 3 0.976 None
Table 4.2 shows reliability coefficient for all perspectives were above the
threshold value of 0.7. These results suggest that 78 SMP indicators are statistically
reliable and should not be omitted from the analysis.
103
In the next step, reliability test of applicability level was performed (see
Appendix B4). Table 4.3 shows reliability coefficient for all perspectives were
above the threshold value of 0.7. These results indicate that 78 SMP indicators are
statistically reliable based on applicability level point of view and were retained for
the further analysis.
Table 4.1: Results of internal consistency analysis (applicability level)

Perspectives Number of Items Alpha Value Item for Deletion
P1. Cost effectiveness 14 0.968 None
P2. Quality 8 0.948 None
P3. Productivity 8 0.934 None
P4. Environmental 26 0.964 None
P5. Learning and growth 6 0.942 None
P6. Health and safety 10 0.972 None
P7. Employee satisfaction 3 0.940 None
P8. Stakeholders satisfaction 3 0.956 None
4.5 Exploratory Factor Analysis
In this research, EFA conducted to assess SMP indicators in terms of

importance and applicability point of view. The stages for EFA have been described
in previous chapter (Figure 3.2). The detail results are presented in Appendices B5
and B6.
4.5.1 Statistical Requirement Results (Importance Level)
First, the researcher has to ensure all SMP indicators are appropriate for EFA
using the criterions as explained in the previous stage. The KMO for all SMP factors
(economic, environmental, and social) were above the threshold value of 0.6
(Raykov and Marcoulides, 2008). Similarly, Bartlett’s test of sphericity for all SMP
factors was significant (p < 0.001), indicating the correlation matrix has a significant
correlation among at least some of the indicators (Hair et al., 2010; Ho, 2014).
These measures proved that all SMP indicators are suitable for factor analysis.
Therefore, the study can proceed to the next steps of factor analysis.
104
Economic factor was extracted into three sub-factors (perspectives). The

results have shown eigenvalues for all three sub-factors were higher than one.
Moreover, the percentage of variance for three sub-factors was 34.005%, 27.847%,
and 12.304%, respectively. That was, 74.156% of the total variance was attributable
to these three sub-factors. Hence, all values indicated three sub-factors were
significant in order to achieve the best structure of 30 economic indicators and were
retained for the next rotation process.
Environmental factor was extracted into one sub-factor (perspective).

However, the total amounts of variance of 48.943% not meet the minimum threshold
value. Thus, in the second iteration, environmental factor was extracted and divided
into two sub-factors. Eigenvalues for two sub-factors were higher than one. These
two sub-factors accounted for 34.471% and 25.548% of the total variance,
respectively. 60.019% of the total variance was attributable to these two sub-factors.
Therefore, environmental factor with two sub-factors was adequate in representing
26 environmental indicators and were retained for the next rotation process. These
results are supported by previous studies that show environmental factor is focused
on resource efficiency and reduction of pollution and waste for supporting the overall
sustainability performance achievement (Dias-Sardinha and Reijnders, 2005; Orsato
and Wells, 2007).
Social factor was extracted into four sub-factors (perspectives). Eigenvalues

for all sub-factors were higher than one. Percentage of variance for all sub-factors
was 38.014%, 20.097%, 13.987%, and 13.014%, respectively. Moreover,
cumulative variance explained for all sub-factors was 85.112%. Thus, social factor
with four sub-factors was the best structure in representing 22 social indicators and
were retained for the next rotation process.
4.5.2 Rotated Factor Matrix Results (Importance Level)
Next, the rotated factor matrix was identified and interpreted by its factor
loading and communalities. Factor loadings for each indicator on its respective sub
105
factor should be higher than 0.5 (Hair et al., 2010). Factor loadings for all 30
economic indicators fell within the acceptable range, 0.602 to 0.842. Once all the
significant loadings have been identified, researcher needs to identify the
communalities of each indicator. Communalities should be higher than 0.5 to
achieve acceptable level of explanation (Hair et al., 2010). Communalities of all
indicators were 0.625 to 0.833. Based on these results, no indicators were
recommended to be omitted. Thus, economic factor consists of three sub-factors; the
first sub-factor represents “cost effectiveness perspective” with 14 indicators, the
second sub-factor represents “quality perspective” with 8 indicators and third sub-
factor represents “productivity perspective” with 8 indicators, respectively.
In environmental factor, rotated factor matrix revealed 2 of 26 indicators have

factor loadings less than 0.5; original oils consumption and synthetic oils
consumption. Moreover, there were 4 of 26 indicators having communalities less
than 0.5; original oils consumption, synthetic oils consumption, vegetable oils
consumption, and total of water consumption. These results indicated four indicators
were either non-significant and not having sufficient explanation. Thus, 4 of 26
indicators were recommended to be omitted. In the third iteration of EFA for 22
indicators, rotated factor matrix showed all indicators have significant factor
loadings. However, there were 2 of 22 indicators have communalities less than 0.5;
fresh water consumption and total of land used. Thus, 2 of 22 indicators were
recommended to be omitted. In the fourth iteration of EFA for 20 indicators, rotated
factor matrix indicated all indicators have factor loadings greater than 0.5. However,
1out of 20 indicators has communalities less than 0.5; recycled water consumption.
Thus, recycled water consumption was recommended to be omitted. In the fifth
iteration of EFA for 19 indicators, rotated factor matrix showed factor loadings for
all indicators to be within the acceptable range of 0.697 to 0.869. Communalities for
all indicators were 0.575 to 0.825. Based on these results, no indicators were
recommended to be omitted. Thus, environmental factor consists of two sub-factors;
the first sub-factor represents “resource efficiency perspective” with 10 indicators
and the second sub-factor represents “pollution and waste perspective” with 9
indicators, respectively.
106
Factor loadings for all 22 social indicators fell within the acceptable range,
0.651 to 0.897. Communalities of all indicators were between 0.738 and 0.951.
Based on these results, no indicators were recommended to be omitted. Thus, social
factor consists of four sub-factors; the first sub-factor represents “learning and
growth perspective” with 6 indicators, the second sub-factor represents “health and
safety perspective” with 10 indicators, third sub-factor represents “employee
satisfaction perspective” with 3 indicators, and fourth sub-factor represents
“stakeholders satisfaction perspective” with 3 indicators, respectively. Table 4.4
shows the summary of EFA processes and results.
4.5.3 Statistical Requirement Results (Applicability Level)
In terms of applicability, EFA conducted based on EFA importance results.

EFA importance has recommended excluding 7 indicators for further analysis. Thus,
EFA applicability would be conducted for 71 of 78 initial SMP indicators.
First step, researcher need to ensure the appropriateness of EFA for 71 SMP
indicators in terms of applicability. The KMO for all SMP factors (economic,
environmental, and social) were higher than 0.6 (Raykov and Marcoulides, 2008).
Similarly, Bartlett’s test of sphericity for all SMP factors was significant (p < 0.001),
indicating sufficient correlation between the indicators (Hair et al., 2010; Ho, 2014).
These results verified that all SMP indicators are suitable for factor analysis.
Therefore, the study can proceed to the next steps of factor analysis.
Economic factor was extracted into three sub-factors (perspectives). The

results showed eigenvalues for all three sub-factors were higher than 1. Moreover,
the percentage of variance for three sub-factors was 32.214%, 21.545%, and
19.487%, respectively. That was, 73.246% of the total variance was attributable to
these three sub-factors. Thus, all values verified that three sub-factors were
significant in order to achieve the best structure of 30 economic indicators and were
Table 4.4: The summary of EFA processes and results (importance level)
Number of Perspectives and Indicators KMO Bartlett's test Cumulative Factor Communalities Indicators for
Factors
Variance Loadings Deletion

Initial EFA Results
3 perspectives and 3 perspectives and 0.916 p < 0.001 74.156% 0.602 to 0.842 0.625 to 0.833 None
Economic
30 indicators 30 indicators
1 perspective and 2 perspective and 0.868(1) p < 0.001(1) 48.943%(1)

0.868(2) p < 0.001(2) 60.019%(2) 0.417 to 0.179 to 0.822(2) Original oils
0.884(2) consumption
Synthetic oils
consumption
Environmental
Vegetable oils
consumption
Total of water
consumption
0.880(3) p < 0.001(3) 66.467%(3) 0.627 to 0.429 to 0.827(3) Fresh water
Total of land used
0.884(4) p < 0.001(4) 69.416%(4) 0.608 to 0.417 to 0.825(4) Recycled water
0.878(5) p < 0.001(5) 71.038%(5) 0.697 to 0.575 to 0.825(5) None
0.869(5)
4 perspectives and 4 perspectives and 0.867 p < 0.001 85.112% 0.651 to 0.897 0.738 to 0.951 None
Social
(1)
First iteration
(2)
Second iteration
(3)
Third iteration
(4)
Fourth iteration
(5)
Fifth iteration
107
108
Environmental factor was extracted into two sub-factors (perspectives).

Eigenvalues for two sub-factors were higher than 1. These two sub-factors
accounted for 44.446% and 28.130% of the total variance, respectively. That was,
72.576 of the total variance was attributable to these two sub-factors. Therefore,
environmental factor with two sub-factors was adequate in representing 19
environmental indicators and were retained for the next rotation process.
Social factor was extracted into four sub-factors (perspectives). Eigenvalues

for all sub-factors were higher than 1. Percentage of variance for all sub-factors was
33.239%, 20.887%, 19.121%, and 11.334%, respectively. Moreover, cumulative
variance explained for all sub-factors was 84.582%. Thus, the social factor with four
sub-factors was the best structure in representing 22 social indicators and was
4.5.4 Rotated Factor Matrix Results (Applicability Level)
In the next step, the rotated factor matrix was identified and interpreted by its
factor loading and communalities. Factor loadings for each indicator on its
respective sub-factor should be higher than 0.5 (Hair et al., 2010). Factor loadings
for all 30 economic indicators fell within the acceptable range of 0.513 to 0.864.
Once all the significant loadings have been identified, the researcher needs to
identify the communalities of each indicator. Communalities should be higher than
0.5 to achieve the acceptable level of explanation (Hair et al., 2010). Communalities
of all indicators were 0.474 to 0.881. There was 1 of 30 indicators having
communalities value slightly below than 0.5; number of breakdowns. However, this
indicator would be retained as it has sufficient factor loadings and is important from
a practical point of view. Moreover, factor loadings and communalities of this
indicator in terms of importance level were 0.737 and 0.736, respectively. Therefore,
no indicators were recommended to be excluded from this analysis. Thus, economic
factor consists of three sub-factor; the first sub-factor represents “cost effectiveness
perspective” with 14 indicators, the second sub-factor represents “quality
109
perspective” with 8 indicators, and third sub-factor represents “productivity

perspective” with 8 indicators, respectively.
For environmental factor, the rotated factor matrix showed factor loadings for
all indicators within the acceptable range of 0.555 to 0.879. Communalities for all
indicators were 0.440 to 0.829. There were 1 of 19 indicators having communalities
value slightly below than 0.5; total of energy consumption. However, this indicator
would be retained as this indicator having enough factor loadings and important from
a practical point of view. Therefore, no indicators were recommended to be
excluded from this analysis. Environmental factor consists of two sub-factors; the
first sub-factor represents “resource efficiency perspective” with 10 indicators and
the second sub-factor represents “pollution and waste perspective” with 9 indicators.
Factor loadings for all 22 social indicators fell within the acceptable range,
0.589 to 0.884. Communalities of all indicators were between 0.768 and 0.926.
Based on these results, no indicators were recommended to be excluded from this
analysis. Thus, social factor consists of four sub-factors; the first sub-factor
represents “learning and growth perspective” with 6 indicators, the second sub-factor
represents “health and safety perspective” with 10 indicators, third sub-factor
represents “employee satisfaction perspective” with 3 indicators and fourth sub-
factor represents “stakeholders satisfaction perspective” with 3 indicators,
respectively. Table 4.5 presents the summary of EFA processes and results.
From the EFA results in terms of importance and applicability, it showed that
9 sub-factors (perspectives) have been identified with 71 indicators as compared to
initial SMPM framework which are 8 sub-factors (perspectives) with 78 indicators as
presented in Table 4.6.
Table 4.5: The summary of EFA processes and results (applicability level)
Number of Perspectives and Indicators KMO Bartlett's test Cumulative Factor Communalities Indicators for
Factors
Variance Loadings Deletion
Initial EFA Results

3 perspectives and 3 perspectives and 0.903 p < 0.001 73.246% 0.513 to 0.474 to 0.881 None
Economic
30 indicators 30 indicators 0.864
2 perspective and 2 perspective and 0.915 p < 0.001 72.576% 0.555 to 0.440 to 0.829 None
Environmental
4 perspectives and 4 perspectives and 0.899 p < 0.001 84.582% 0.589 to 0.768 to 0.926 None
Social
110
111
Table 4.6: The comparison of SMPM framework

Initial SMPM Framework SMPM Framework after EFA
Economic factor: Economic factor:
- Cost effectiveness perspective (14 - Cost effectiveness perspective (14
indicators) indicators)
- Quality perspective (8 indicators) - Quality perspectives (8 indicators)
- Productivity (8 indicators) - Productivity (8 indicators)
Environmental factor: 26 indicators Environmental factor:
- Resource efficiency perspective (10
indicators)
- Pollution and waste perspective (9
indicators)
Social factor: Social factor:
- Learning and growth perspective (6 - Learning and growth perspective (6
- Health and safety perspective (10 - Health and safety perspective (10
- Employee satisfaction perspective (3 - Employee satisfaction perspective (3
- Stakeholder satisfaction perspective - Stakeholder satisfaction perspective (3
(3 indicators) indicators)
4.6 Partial Least Squares – Structural Equation Modeling
In this research, SMPM framework conceptualizes as a reflective, third-order

HCM as presented in Figure 4.13. PLS-SEM assessment was divided into two
evaluation processes, that is measurement model evaluation and structural model
evaluation as described in Chapter 3.
112
Figure 4.1: Hierarchical component model of SMPM Framework

113
4.6.1 Measurement Model Evaluation (Importance Level)
First, the indicator loadings were determined. For the importance level, the
loadings value of each indicator to its construct is presented in Table 4.7. The
loadings for each indicator fell within the significant level, 0.644 to 0.979 on the
first-order constructs, 0.582 to 0.866 on the second-order constructs, and 0.504 to
0.789 on the third-order constructs, respectively. All the indicator loadings were
above the minimum required value of 0.4 (Hair et al., 2014). Therefore no indicators
were recommended to be omitted for further analysis.
Table 4.7: Outer loadings of each indicator

Third Order
First Order Second Order
Indicator (Sustainable Maintenance
(Perspective/ Sub Factor) (Main Factor)
Performance)
1.1 Cost Effectiveness 1. Economic
C1 0.676 0.620 0.617
C2 0.644 0.582 0.542
C3 0.881 0.856 0.779
C3.1 0.857 0.829 0.718
C4 0.851 0.822 0.726
C4.1 0.853 0.801 0.701
C4.1.1 0.819 0.734 0.669
C4.1.2 0.871 0.785 0.707
C4.1.3 0.834 0.770 0.661
C4.2 0.853 0.790 0.739
C4.2.1 0.841 0.750 0.671
C.4.2.2 0.849 0.760 0.647
C4.2.3 0.847 0.761 0.665
C4.3 0.888 0.846 0.761
1.2 Quality
Q1 0.833 0.722 0.690
Q1.1 0.820 0.721 0.714
Q1.1.1 0.887 0.803 0.739
Q1.1.2 0.919 0.840 0.758
Q1.1.3 0.920 0.807 0.741
Q1.1.4 0.917 0.823 0.771
Q1.1.5 0.866 0.786 0.742
Q1.1.6 0.851 0.789 0.715
114
Table 4.7: Outer loadings of each indicator (continued)

Third Order
Performance)
1.3 Productivity
P1 0.844 0.792 0.689
P1.1 0.922 0.853 0.778
P1.1.1 0.930 0.856 0.789
P1.1.2 0.878 0.814 0.769
P1.2 0.902 0.837 0.783
P1.2.1 0.868 0.789 0.731
P1.2.2 0.852 0.781 0.722
P1.2.3 0.869 0.802 0.743
2.1 Resource Efficiency 2. Environmental
EN1 0.883 0.826 0.718
EN1.1 0.792 0.711 0.678
EN1.1.1 0.790 0.653 0.739
EN1.1.2 0.815 0.716 0.607
EN1.1.3 0.884 0.787 0.683
EN1.1.4 0.877 0.760 0.699
EN1.2 0.751 0.626 0.676
EN1.5 0.763 0.679 0.713
EN1.5.1 0.671 0.751 0.504
EN1.5.2 0.736 0.830 0.621
2.2 Pollution and Waste
EN2 0.783 0.726 0.559
EN2.1 0.840 0.749 0.590
EN2.1.1 0.890 0.805 0.555
EN2.1.2 0.882 0.799 0.543
EN2.2 0.818 0.740 0.586
EN2.2.1 0.852 0.755 0.533
EN2.2.1 0.867 0.795 0.554
EN2.3 0.885 0.857 0.662
EN2.3.1 0.800 0.752 0.580
3.1 Learning and Growth 3. Social
L1 0.870 0.696 0.649
L1.1 0.865 0.700 0.686
L1.1.1 0.875 0.727 0.696
L2 0.890 0.806 0.695
L2.1 0.897 0.804 0.720
L2.1.1 0.872 0.787 0.681
115

Third Order
Performance)
3.2 Health and Safety
HS1 0.883 0.783 0.631
HS1.1 0.886 0.795 0.655
HS1.1.1 0.911 0.814 0.633
HS1.1.2 0.923 0.815 0.681
HS1.1.3 0.932 0.819 0.707
HS1.1.4 0.929 0.843 0.753
HS2 0.909 0.850 0.722
HS2.1 0.922 0.866 0.726
HS2.1.1 0.908 0.833 0.724
HS2.1.2 0.900 0.840 0.744
3.3 Employee Satisfaction
EM1 0.933 0.787 0.721
EM1.1 0.949 0.721 0.669
EM1.1.1 0.966 0.761 0.688
3.4 Stakeholder Satisfaction
ST1 0.972 0.719 0.625
ST1.1 0.979 0.729 0.645
ST1.1.1 0.979 0.704 0.627
Second, composite reliability was evaluated. Table 4.8 presents the

composite reliability, where the composite reliability of all constructs was higher
than 0.7 (the minimum threshold value), which indicate all constructs have high
levels of internal consistency reliability (Hair et al., 2011). Thus, no indicators were
recommended to be deleted in order to increase the composite reliability values.
Third, convergent validity of all constructs were identified. The AVE of all
constructs was 0.468 to 0.954 as presented in Table 4.8. Only, the SMP construct
(third-order construct) has the AVE below than acceptable value of 0.5. According
to O’Rourke et al. (2013), the reliability can be acceptable even if AVE estimates is
below than 0.5. The AVE is calculated as the average of the squared factor loadings.
In this research, all of the factor loadings are above the minimum acceptable level of
0.4, thus it was decided not to omit any indicator for further analysis. Similarly,
Wilden et al. (2013) decided to retain all items even the AVE below than 0.5 because
116
their significance to the construct and the individual factor loadings of all items
above than 0.4.
Table 4.8: Convergent validity and internal consistency reliability of each construct
Constructs AVE Composite Reliability Cronbachs Alpha
First-order constructs
Cost Effectiveness 0.687 0.968 0.964
Quality 0.770 0.964 0.957
Productivity 0.781 0.966 0.960
Resource Efficiency 0.638 0.946 0.936
Pollution and Waste 0.717 0.958 0.950
Learning and Growth 0.771 0.953 0.941
Health and Safety 0.829 0.980 0.977
Employee Satisfaction 0.901 0.965 0.945
Stakeholder Satisfaction 0.954 0.984 0.976
Second-order constructs
Economic 0.619 0.980 0.978
Environmental 0.571 0.962 0.958
Social 0.614 0.972 0.970
Third-order construct
Sustainable Maintenance Performance 0.468 0.984 0.984
Fourth, two measures of discriminant validity for all first-order constructs

were examined, i.e. the Fornell-Larcker criterion and cross-loadings (Hair et al.,
2011). Table 4.9 presents the Fornell-Larcker criterion result where the square root
of each construct’s AVE greater than its highest correlation with any other construct.
The additional support test for discriminant validity is presented in Table 4.10, where
an indicator’s loadings on the associated construct higher than all of its loadings on
other constructs. All the first-order constructs of SMPM framework met this
requirement.
Based on above results, it can be concluded that all model evaluation criteria
have been fulfilled, providing support evidence for SMPM framework’s reliability
and validity in terms of importance level. Therefore, all indicators were retained for
further analysis.
117
Table 4.9: Discriminant validity (Fornell-Larcker criterion)

Constructs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Cost Effectiveness
0.829
(1)
Employee Satisfaction
0.535 0.949
(2)
Health and Safety

0.514 0.604 0.911
(3)
Learning and Growth

0.502 0.669 0.637 0.878
(4)
Pollution and Waste

0.378 0.568 0.392 0.642 0.847
(5)
Productivity
0.765 0.455 0.602 0.523 0.456 0.884
(6)
Quality
0.714 0.455 0.573 0.532 0.421 0.818 0.877
(7)
Resource Efficiency
0.607 0.637 0.504 0.670 0.700 0.611 0.629 0.799
(8)
Stakeholder Satisfaction
0.433 0.619 0.508 0.627 0.522 0.364 0.484 0.524 0.977
(9)
118
Table 4.10: Discriminant validity (cross-loadings)

119
4.6.2 Structural Model Evaluation (Importance Level)
The main evaluation criteria to assess the structural model are the
significance of the path coefficients and the coefficient of determination (R2 value)
as described in Chapter 3 (Figure 3.4). As indicated in Table 4.11, all of the
structural model relationships have strong positive relationships and significance at a
level of 1%, in terms of importance level.
Table 4.11: Significance testing results of the structural model path coefficients
Path Standard Significance
Relationships t Values
Coefficients Error Levels
First-order constructs and second-order constructs
Economic -> Cost Effectiveness 0.93 0.02 60.51 ***
Economic -> Productivity 0.92 0.02 57.69 ***
Economic -> Quality 0.90 0.02 46.63 ***
Environmental -> Pollution and Waste 0.92 0.02 51.14 ***
Environmental -> Resource Efficiency 0.93 0.02 53.32 ***
Social -> Employee Satisfaction 0.80 0.04 22.01 ***
Social -> Health and Safety 0.91 0.02 49.52 ***
Social -> Learning and Growth 0.86 0.03 25.22 ***
Social -> Stakeholder Satisfaction 0.73 0.06 11.59 ***
Second-order constructs and third-order constructs
Economic -> SMP 0.52 0.03 15.51 ***
Environmental -> SMP 0.26 0.02 10.66 ***
Social -> SMP 0.36 0.02 16.56 ***
* p = 0.10; ** p = 0.05; *** p = 0.01
The next important criterion to evaluate the structural model is the coefficient
of determination (R2 value) as presented in Table 4.12. 7 of 10 endogenous
constructs have the R2 value greater than 0.75, thus they can be considered as
substantial. Moreover, SMP construct has the highest R2 value of 0.998 which
indicate the highest levels of predictive accuracy in the structural model. On the
contrary, the R2 values of 3 of 10 endogenous constructs fell between 0.50 and 0.75,
thus they can be considered as moderate. The stakeholder satisfaction construct has
the lowest R2 value of 0.5393, but this is still considered as moderate. Based on
these results, no constructs were indicated having weak levels of predictive accuracy
in the structural model.
120
Table 4.12: Coefficient of determination value
Endogenous Latent Variable R Square
Cost Effectiveness 0.8604
Employee Satisfaction 0.6364
Health and Safety 0.8238
Learning and Growth 0.7409
Pollution and Waste 0.8403
Productivity 0.8528
Quality 0.8059
Resource Efficiency 0.8595
Stakeholder Satisfaction 0.5391
Sustainable Maintenance Performance 0.9998
4.6.3 Measurement Model Evaluation (Applicability Level)
In the next step, measurement model evaluation was applied for applicability
level. First, the indicator loadings were determined. The loadings value of each
indicator to its construct is presented in Table 4.13. The loadings for each indicator
fell within the significant level, 0.665 to 0.967 on the first-order constructs, 0.509 to
0.870 on the second-order constructs and 0.577 to 0.800 on the third-order
constructs, respectively. All the indicator loadings were above the minimum
required value of 0.4 (Hair et al., 2014). Therefore no indicators were recommended
to be omitted for further analysis.
121
Table 4.13: Outer loadings of each indicator

Third Order
Performance )
1.1 Cost Effectiveness 1. Economic
C1 0.701 0.746 0.738
C2 0.747 0.730 0.684
C3 0.871 0.815 0.670
C3.1 0.848 0.781 0.620
C4 0.878 0.801 0.627
C4.1 0.836 0.758 0.631
C4.1.1 0.825 0.731 0.630
C4.1.2 0.886 0.836 0.718
C4.1.3 0.860 0.769 0.622
C4.2 0.835 0.755 0.655
C4.2.1 0.844 0.730 0.603
C.4.2.2 0.902 0.814 0.675
C4.2.3 0.862 0.774 0.645
C4.3 0.891 0.839 0.743
1.2 Quality
Q1 0.885 0.764 0.655
Q1.1 0.882 0.752 0.707
Q1.1.1 0.907 0.811 0.698
Q1.1.2 0.939 0.863 0.779
Q1.1.3 0.933 0.844 0.771
Q1.1.4 0.925 0.825 0.732
Q1.1.5 0.757 0.689 0.696
Q1.1.6 0.665 0.581 0.670
1.3 Productivity
P1 0.857 0.766 0.646
P1.1 0.894 0.757 0.657
P1.1.1 0.879 0.771 0.734
P1.1.2 0.773 0.586 0.636
P1.2 0.891 0.715 0.685
P1.2.1 0.835 0.703 0.683
P1.2.2 0.833 0.714 0.641
P1.2.3 0.686 0.509 0.577
122

Third Order
Performance )
2.1 Resource Efficiency 2. Environmental
EN1 0.788 0.666 0.667
EN1.1 0.799 0.688 0.701
EN1.1.1 0.724 0.608 0.662
EN1.1.2 0.793 0.704 0.617
EN1.1.3 0.909 0.847 0.740
EN1.1.4 0.869 0.816 0.711
EN1.2 0.708 0.559 0.645
EN1.5 0.697 0.623 0.629
EN1.5.1 0.757 0.857 0.689
EN1.5.2 0.727 0.779 0.675
2.2 Pollution and Waste
EN2 0.892 0.827 0.643
EN2.1 0.895 0.841 0.685
EN2.1.1 0.897 0.848 0.703
EN2.1.2 0.905 0.862 0.713
EN2.2 0.893 0.828 0.675
EN2.2.1 0.880 0.826 0.674
EN2.2.2 0.881 0.828 0.679
EN2.3 0.896 0.870 0.752
EN2.3.1 0.836 0.796 0.662
3.1 Learning and Growth 3. Social
L1 0.841 0.727 0.711
L1.1 0.891 0.734 0.711
L1.1.1 0.865 0.695 0.683
L2 0.912 0.817 0.752
L2.1 0.911 0.829 0.777
L2.1.1 0.877 0.821 0.725
3.2 Health and Safety
HS1 0.894 0.814 0.715
HS1.1 0.907 0.830 0.736
HS1.1.1 0.895 0.837 0.739
HS1.1.2 0.934 0.842 0.750
HS1.1.3 0.935 0.845 0.757
HS1.1.4 0.917 0.825 0.742
HS2 0.852 0.825 0.750
HS2.1 0.853 0.846 0.793
HS2.1.1 0.891 0.853 0.779
HS2.1.2 0.852 0.849 0.800
123

Third Order
Performance )
3.3 Employee Satisfaction
EM1 0.940 0.781 0.703
EM1.1 0.937 0.782 0.737
EM1.1.1 0.958 0.810 0.702
3.4 Stakeholder Satisfaction
ST1 0.967 0.778 0.709
ST1.1 0.964 0.772 0.706
ST1.1.1 0.946 0.791 0.676
Second, composite reliability was evaluated. Table 4.14 presents the

composite reliability, where the composite reliability of all constructs was higher
than 0.7 (the minimum threshold value), which indicate all constructs have the high
level of internal consistency reliability (Hair et al., 2011). Thus, no indicators were
recommended to be deleted in order to increase the composite reliability values.
Table 4.14: Convergent validity and internal consistency reliability of each construct
Constructs AVE Composite Reliability Cronbachs Alpha
First-order constructs
Cost Effectiveness 0.712 0.972 0.968
Quality 0.751 0.960 0.951
Productivity 0.695 0.948 0.936
Resource Efficiency 0.608 0.939 0.928
Pollution and Waste 0.786 0.971 0.966
Learning and Growth 0.780 0.955 0.944
Employee Satisfaction 0.893 0.962 0.940
Stakeholder Satisfaction 0.920 0.972 0.956

Second-order constructs
Economic 0.570 0.975 0.973
Environmental 0.606 0.966 0.963
Social 0.649 0.976 0.974
Third-order construct
Sustainable Maintenance Performance 0.485 0.985 0.985
124
Third, convergent validity of all constructs were identified. The AVE of all
constructs were between 0.485 to 0.920 as presented in Table 4.14. Only, the SMP
construct (third-order construct) has the AVE below than acceptable value of 0.5.
According to O’Rourke et al. (2013), the reliability can be acceptable even if AVE
estimates is below than 0.5. The AVE is calculated as the average of the squared
factor loadings. In this research, all of the factor loadings are above the minimum
acceptable level of 0.4, thus it was decided to not omit any indicator for further
analysis.
Fourth, discriminant validity for all first-order constructs was examined in

order to test the constructs are sufficiently different from each other. Table 4.15
presents the Fornell-Larcker criterion result where the square root of each construct’s
AVE greater than its highest correlation with any other construct. The additional
support test for discriminant validity is presented in Table 4.16 where an indicator’s
loadings on the associated construct higher than all of its loadings on other
constructs. All the first-order constructs of SMPM framework met this requirement.
Table 4.15: Discriminant validity (Fornell-Larcker criterion)

Constructs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
(1)
Employee Satisfaction 0.418 0.945

(2)

(3)
Learning and Growth 0.534 0.693 0.709 0.883

(4)
Pollution and Waste 0.453 0.676 0.639 0.639 0.886

(5)
Productivity 0.629 0.489 0.595 0.580 0.526 0.834

(6)
Quality 0.714 0.464 0.639 0.607 0.455 0.704 0.867

(7)
Resource Efficiency 0.583 0.696 0.686 0.694 0.757 0.609 0.648 0.780
(8)
Stakeholder 0.516 0.695 0.668 0.677 0.481 0.469 0.572 0.548 0.959
Satisfaction (9)
125
Table 4.16: Discriminant validity (cross loadings)

126
Based on above results, it can be concluded that all model evaluation criteria
have been fulfilled, providing support evidence for SMPM framework’s reliability
and validity in terms of applicability level.
4.6.4 Structural Model Evaluation (Applicability Level)
Next, the structural model evaluation was applied for applicability level. As
presented in Table 4.17, all the structural model relationships have strong positive
relationships and significance at a level of 1%.
Table 4.17: Significance testing results of the structural model path coefficients
Path Standard Significance
Relationships t Values
Coefficients Error Levels
First-order constructs and second-order constructs
Economic -> Cost Effectiveness 0.92 0.02 52.65 ***
Economic -> Productivity 0.84 0.05 18.28 ***
Economic -> Quality 0.89 0.02 38.92 ***
Environmental -> Pollution and Waste 0.94 0.01 93.10 ***
Environmental -> Resource Efficiency 0.93 0.01 64.98 ***
Social -> Employee Satisfaction 0.84 0.04 23.76 ***
Social -> Health and Safety 0.94 0.01 73.17 ***
Social -> Learning and Growth 0.88 0.02 36.94 ***
Social -> Stakeholder Satisfaction 0.81 0.04 19.10 ***
Second-order constructs and third-order constructs
Economic -> SMP 0.45 0.02 19.51 ***
Environmental -> SMP 0.29 0.02 15.87 ***
Social -> SMP 0.38 0.02 18.56 ***
* p = 0.10; ** p = 0.05; *** p = 0.01
The next important criterion to evaluate in a structural model is the

coefficient of determination (R2 value) as presented in Table 4.18. 7 of 10
endogenous constructs have the R2 value above of 0.75, thus they can be considered
as substantial. Moreover, SMP construct has the highest R2 value of 0.999 which
indicate the highest levels of predictive accuracy in the structural model. Contrary,
the R2 values of 3 of 10 endogenous constructs fell between 0.50 and 0.75, thus they
127
can be considered as moderate. The stakeholder satisfaction construct has the lowest
R2 value of 0.6624, but this is still considered as moderate. Based on these results,
no constructs were indicated having weak levels of predictive accuracy in the
structural model.
Table 4.18: Coefficient of determination value
Endogenous Latent Variable R Square
Employee Satisfaction 0.6364
Health and Safety 0.8238
Learning and Growth 0.7409
Pollution and Waste 0.8403
Productivity 0.8528
Quality 0.8059
Resources Efficiency 0.8595
Stakeholder Satisfaction 0.5391
Sustainable Maintenance Performance 0.9998
Based on the results of PLS-SEM processes (for importance and applicability

level), it revealed that SMP has the highest coefficient of determination (R2) values
with respect to its three factors namely, economic, environmental, and social (see
Table 4.12 and Table 4.18). The result showed a substantial relationship between
SMP construct and its factors in the structural model of SMPM framework. This
result confirmed the conceptual theory that mentioned sustainability is represented
by three pillars i.e. economic, environmental, and social. Therefore, a balanced and
integrated SMPM framework needs to take into account all three pillars of
sustainability rather than focused on a specific factor, so as the sustainable objectives
can be achieved. From these explanations, this study proposed a balanced and
integrated SMPM framework as shown in Table 4.19. It consists of three main
factors of sustainability, nine perspectives, and 71 indicators. Furthermore, Table
4.20 to Table 4.28 presents the operational definition of each indicator.
128
Table 4.19: SMPM framework

Position level Level 1/ Corporate Level 2/ Tactical Level 3/ Functional
Economic Performance Indicators
Cost Return on eco-friendly
effectiveness maintenance investment and
perspective innovations
Computerized maintenance
management system
Manufacturing budget Production cost/ unit
Maintenance budget Preventive maintenance cost Direct material cost
Direct maintenance labor cost
Overhead cost
Corrective maintenance cost Direct material cost
Overhead cost
Maintenance cost/ unit
Quality Overall plant effectiveness Overall department effectiveness Overall equipment effectiveness
perspective Availability
Performance rate
Quality rate
Mean time between failures
Number of breakdowns
Productivity Maintenance efficiency Preventive maintenance task Maintenance program
perspective achievement
Start up after shutdown
Corrective maintenance task Quality for maintenance task
(rework)
Response time for maintenance
Mean time to repair
Environmental Performance Indicators
Resource Resources saving Total number of spare parts used Original spare parts used
efficiency Recycled spare parts used
perspective Re-purposed spare parts used
Remanufactured spare parts
used
Total volume of lubricants
consumption
Total mass of energy Non-renewable energy
consumption consumption
Renewable energy consumption
Pollution and Environmental illegal cases Water pollution Total of bio-degradable
waste lubricants consumption
perspective Total of bio-degradable cleanser
consumption
Land contamination Total of bio-degradable
components used
Total of hazardous waste
produced
Air pollution index Total of greenhouse gas
emissions
Social Performance Indicators
Learning and Skill improvement related to Training topics Training hours per employee
growth sustainable maintenance
perspective practices
Innovation carried out related to Innovation suggested Small group meetings/ team
sustainable maintenance work
Health and Lost time injury rate Recordable injury rate Safety attitude
safety Toxic spare parts
perspective Toxic lubricants
Toxic cleanser
Unsafe health and safety Physical working environment Workplace noise level
practices Lighting and ventilation
Employee Employee turn-over rate Employee satisfaction rate Employee complaints
satisfaction
perspective
Stakeholder Stakeholders - company Stakeholders satisfaction rate Stakeholders complaints
satisfaction partnership in terms of
perspective sustainable maintenance
practices
129
Table 4.20: Operational Definition of SMP Indicators with Respect to Cost

Effectiveness Perspective
No. Indicator Definition
Cost effectiveness
How can we continue to reduce the unit costs of the eco-friendly asset management efforts? (Mather,
2005)
C1 Return on eco- Return on eco-friendly maintenance investment and innovation
friendly maintenance indicator compares the return earned due to an increased eco-
investment and friendly maintenance investment and innovation with a past
innovations record/benchmark (Parida and Chattopadhyay, 2007).
C2 Computerized Percentage of maintenance management activities which use a
maintenance paperless system (Ajukumar and Ghandi, 2013).
management system
C3 Manufacturing Total costs related to manufacturing activities. The variables of
budget the manufacturing cost are materials (including the scrap amount),
equipment, and the tasks involved that create the part form
(Grewal, 2011).
C3.1 Production cost/ unit Production cost is the sum of the cost which related into making a
product. This indicator can be used for ascertaining the relative
impact of high or low maintenance efforts (Parida and
Chattopadhyay, 2007).
C4 Maintenance budget The costs related to maintenance activities (preventive and
corrective maintenance) (Mirghani, 2009).
C4.1 Preventive The total costs related to planned maintenance activities (periodic
maintenance cost and predictive maintenance) (Mirghani, 2009).
C4.1.1 Direct material cost Direct materials (spare parts) represent all materials and
component parts directly traceable to a planned maintenance job in
an economically feasible manner (Mirghani, 2009).
C4.1.2 Direct maintenance Direct maintenance labor represents all labor skills that directly
labor cost work on a planned maintenance job and their cost is traceable to
that job in an economically feasible manner (Mirghani, 2009).
C4.1.3 Overhead cost Overhead maintenance costs represent all planned maintenance
costs other than direct materials and direct maintenance labor costs
(Mirghani, 2009).
C4.2 Corrective The total costs related to unplanned maintenance activities
maintenance cost (breakdown) (Mirghani, 2009).
C4.2.1 Direct material cost Direct materials (spare parts) represent all materials and
component parts directly traceable to an unplanned maintenance
job in an economically feasible manner (Mirghani, 2009).
C4.2.2 Direct maintenance Direct maintenance labor represents all labor skills that directly
labor cost work on an unplanned maintenance job and their cost is traceable
to that job in an economically feasible manner (Mirghani, 2009).
C4.2.3 Overhead cost Overhead maintenance costs represent all unplanned maintenance
costs other than direct materials and direct maintenance labor costs
(Mirghani, 2009).
C4.3 Maintenance cost/ The indicator is the measure of the total maintenance cost required
unit for an asset or facility to generate a unit of production over a
specified time period (monthly, quarterly, annually, etc.). This
indicator can be applied to a specific asset, a group of assets within
a facility, across an entire facility, or across multiple facilities
(SMRP, 2016).
130
Table 4.21: Operational Definition of SMP Indicators with Respect to Quality

Perspective
Quality
How can we assure the repeatability of sustainable performance of physical assets? (Mather, 2005)
Q1 Overall plant The average Overall equipment effectiveness (OEE) of all
effectiveness machines in a plant (Parida, 2012).
Q1.1 Overall department The average OEE of all machines at the department level (Parida,
effectiveness 2012).
Q1.1.1 Overall equipment OEE is an indicator of asset performance based on actual
effectiveness availability, performance rate, and quality of product or output
when the asset is scheduled to operate. OEE can identify and
categorize major losses for poor asset performance. OEE provides
the basis for setting improvement priorities and beginning root
cause analysis. OEE can also foster cooperation and collaboration
between operations, maintenance, and equipment engineering to
identify and reduce or eliminate the major causes of poor asset
performance. Maintenance alone cannot improve the OEE
(Nachiappan and Anantharaman, 2006; Muchiri et al., 2011;
SMRP, 2016).
Q1.1.2 Availability The availability is expressed as the percentage of time that the
asset is actually operating (uptime) compared to when it is
scheduled to operate. Availability is a measure of asset’s ability to
be operated if required. It is used for calculating OEE (Parida and
Chattopadhyay, 2007; SMRP, 2016).
Q1.1.3 Performance rate Performance rate indicates the speed of production. It is used for
calculating OEE (Parida and Chattopadhyay, 2007; Duffuaa and
Haroun, 2009).
Q1.1.4 Quality rate Quality rate indicator refers to the quality of the product or service
(units produced within specifications). This indicator can be
quantified in terms of percentage nonconforming items, goods
return, and customer complaints. It is used for calculating OEE
(Parida and Chattopadhyay, 2007; Duffuaa and Haroun, 2009).
Q1.1.5 Mean time between Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF) is the average length of
failure operating time between failures for an asset or component. MTBF
is used for repairable and non-repairable assets or components.
Increasing in MTBF indicates improved asset reliability (Muchiri
et al., 2011; SMRP, 2016).
Q1.1.6 Number of Related to unplanned maintenance (downtime) within a specific
breakdown period (Mather, 2005).
131
Table 4.22: Operational Definition of SMP Indicators with Respect to Productivity

Perspective
Productivity
How can sustainable asset management process contribute to the ability to produce more from
existing assets? (Mather, 2005)
P1 Maintenance This indicator is intended as a guide for measuring the
efficiency effectiveness of maintenance activities. It compares actual hours
worked on maintenance and total of available hours for
maintenance (Mather, 2005; Duffuaa and Haroun, 2009).
P1.1 Preventive Preventive maintenance task is number of maintenance hours
maintenance task worked as planned versus total of maintenance hours worked.
This indicator indicates the effectiveness of the routine
maintenance planning process (Duffuaa and Haroun, 2009).
P1.1.1 Maintenance Maintenance program achievement is a percentage measure that
program achievement explains the amount of scheduled work that was completed as per
the plan. It compares number of scheduled task executed and total
number of task scheduled. This measure provides a guide to
potential issues within the planning, scheduling, and execution
processes. Furthermore, this measure reflects the effectiveness of
the maintenance work scheduling process. Hence, low compliance
to scheduled works could indicate over-scheduling, under-
performance, high levels of reactive works (unplanned), etc.
(Mather, 2005; SMRP, 2016).
P1.1.2 Start up after This indicator indicates the time in hours or minutes for the
shutdown change-over from a stoppage condition to a running condition
(Parida and Chattopadhyay, 2007).
P1.2 Corrective Corrective maintenance task is the amount of unplanned
maintenance task maintenance work hours that was completed versus the total
maintenance labor hours. Any completed work done that was not
planned is defined as unplanned work (SMRP, 2016).
P1.2.1 Quality for Quality for maintenance task (rework) is corrective work done on
maintenance task previously maintained equipment that has prematurely failed due
(rework) to maintenance, operations, or material problems. It compares
total number of rework post-maintenance and total number of
maintenance task executed. This indicator indicates the efficiency
and effectiveness of the maintenance task carried out (Muchiri et
al., 2011; SMRP, 2016).
P1.2.2 Response time for The response time for maintenance indicates the time taken in
maintenance minutes or hours for undertaking the maintenance works after the
same have been reported by the production or operation personnel
(Parida and Chattopadhyay, 2007).
P1.2.3 Mean time to repair Mean time to repair is the standard measure of the effectiveness of
the maintenance function in performing repairs. It compares total
of time to repair and number of failures. Moreover, it is used to
measure the effectiveness of the maintenance strategy for an asset
or component. It can also be used to optimize the productivity of
maintenance personnel by minimizing the number of trips to a
specific asset or component (Mather, 2005; SMRP, 2016).
132
Table 4.23: Operational Definition of SMP Indicators with Respect to Resource

Efficiency Perspective
Resource Efficiency
How can sustainable asset management process contribute to the ability to save more resources?
EN1 Resources saving Maintenance activities need to have resources for executing
preventive maintenance and corrective maintenance. They are
spare parts, lubricants, water, land, and energy. This indicator
measures the percentage of resources saving. It compares total
number of resources used and total number of planned resources
(Alsyouf , 2006).
EN1.1 Total of spare parts This indicator describes the total number of spare parts
used consumption for planned and unplanned maintenance activities
(Joung et al., 2012).
EN1.1.1 Original spare parts This indicator measures the percentage of original (virgin) spare
used parts used for planned and unplanned maintenance activities. It
compares total number of original spare parts used and total
number of spare parts used (Joung et al., 2012).
EN1.1.2 Recycled spare parts This indicator measures the percentage of recycled spare parts
used used for planned and unplanned maintenance activities. It
compares total number of recycled spare parts used and total
number of spare parts used (Joung et al., 2012).
EN1.1.3 Re-purposed spare This indicator measures the percentage of repurposed (for similar
parts used and different function) spare parts used for planned and
unplanned maintenance activities. It compares total number of
re-purposed spare parts used and total number of spare parts used
(Joung et al., 2012).
EN1.1.4 Remanufactured This indicator measures the percentage of remanufactured spare
spare parts used parts used for planned and unplanned maintenance activities. It
compares total number of remanufactured spare parts used and
total number of spare parts used (Joung et al., 2012).
EN1.2 Total of lubricants Assets need lubrication process in order to enhance machine life
consumption cycle. This indicator measures total number of lubricants used
for planned and unplanned maintenance activities (Ajukumar and
Gandhi, 2013).
EN1.5 Total of energy This indicator measures total number of energy consumption for
consumption planned and unplanned maintenance activities (Chengcheng Fan
et al., 2010).
EN1.5.1 Non-renewable This indicator measures the percentage of non-renewable energy
energy consumption consumption for planned and unplanned maintenance activities
(Tseng et al., 2009).
EN1.5.2 Renewable energy Energy is one of the scarce resources, thus the companies have to
consumption find the renewable energy for executing manufacturing process,
including maintenance activities. This indicator measures the
percentage of renewable energy consumption for planned and
unplanned maintenance activities (Chengcheng Fan et al., 2010).
133
Table 4.24: Operational Definition of SMP Indicators with Respect to Pollution and
Waste Perspective
Pollution and Waste
How can sustainable asset management process contribute to the ability to reduce more pollution
and waste?
EN2 Environmental This indicator measures the percentage of illegal cases related to
illegal cases the environment which caused by planned and unplanned
maintenance activities. Moreover, it indicates the compliance
maintenance activities with the regulations, standards, or policies
(Alsyouf, 2006).
EN2.1 Water pollution Water pollution quantity of pollutant in waste water caused by
planned and unplanned maintenance activities that are discharged
to the water source (Raouf, 2009). Moreover, water pollution
happens when toxic substances are directly or indirectly
discharged into water bodies without proper treatment to remove
toxic substances (Gregory, 1996). Water pollution can be
measured by water quality index (Carr and Rickwood, 2008;
Srivastava and Kumar, 2013).
EN2.1.1 Total of bio- This indicator measures the percentage of bio-degradable
degradable lubricants lubricants consumption for planned and unplanned maintenance
consumption activities. Bio-degradable lubricants are more eco-friendly since
their ability to be rapidly decomposed by living organisms
(Ajukumar and Ghandi, 2013; Total, 2016).
degradable cleanser cleanser consumption for planned and unplanned maintenance
consumption activities (Ajukumar and Ghandi, 2013).
EN2.2 Land contamination The contaminated land refers to land that has been contaminated
by hazardous substances and leads negative impact to the human
health or the environment (Department for Environment Food
and Rural Affairs, 2012). In terms of maintenance activities, land
contamination can occur as a result of poor environmental
management and waste disposal practices related to planned and
unplanned maintenance activities.
degradable components used for planned and unplanned maintenance
components used activities. Selection of proper material to execute maintenance
activity enables reducing negative environmental impact
including water pollution and land contamination (Ajukumar and
Gandhi, 2013). For example, the use of bio-degradable
component is safer for the environment.
EN2.2.2 Total of hazardous This indicator measures percentage of hazardous waste (solid and
waste produced liquid) produced by planned and unplanned maintenance
activities (Chengcheng Fan et. al., 2010).
EN2.3 Air pollution index According to Daly and Zannetti (2007), air pollutant can be
defined as any substance emitted into the air from an
anthropogenic, biogenic, or geogenic source, that is either not
part of the natural atmosphere or is present in higher
concentrations than the natural atmosphere, and may cause a
short-term or long-term adverse effect.
EN2.3.1 Total of greenhouse Greenhouse gases are those gaseous constituents of the
gas emission atmosphere, both natural and anthropogenic, that absorb and emit
radiation at specific wavelengths within the spectrum of thermal
infrared radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface, the atmosphere
itself, and by clouds. This property causes the greenhouse effect
(Baede et al., 2008).
134
Table 4.25: Operational Definition of SMP Indicators with Respect to Learning and
Growth Perspective
Learning and Growth
How can we continue to be innovative and use sustainable asset management as an area of growth?
(Mather, 2005)
L1 Skill improvement This indicator measures employee improvement skill related to
related to sustainable sustainable maintenance practices. It compares number of skill
maintenance improved and total of planned skill improvement. This indicator is
practices crucial in a learning organization (Parida and Chattopadhyay,
2007).
L1.1 Training topics This indicator measures the percentage of training topics have
been delivered to the employee in terms of sustainable
maintenance knowledge. It compares number of executed training
topics and total of planned training topics. This indicator can
evaluate how the organization delivers sustainable maintenance
knowledge to employees (Badurdeen et al., 2011).
L1.1.1 Training hours per This indicator measures the percentage of training hours per
employee employee in terms of sustainable maintenance knowledge. It
compares number of executed training hours and total of planned
training hours. Training plays a crucial function in order to
promote and deliver sustainable maintenance knowledge to
employees (Badurdeen et al., 2011).
L2 Innovation carried This indicator compares number of innovation carried out and total
out related to of innovation suggested. The number of innovation executed
sustainable based on suggestion is an important indicator in a learning
maintenance organization (Parida and Chattopadhyay, 2007).
L2.1 Innovation suggested This indicator indicates number of innovation suggestion based on
new ideas generated in small group meetings. It compares number
of innovation suggested and total hours of small group meetings.
In an organization based on knowledge management, it is very
important in order to measure the use of knowledge for the
continuous improvement of the organization (Parida and
L2.1.1 Small group This indicator measures the percentage of employee hours spent on
meetings/ team work small group meetings related to sustainable maintenance. It
compares total hours of executed small group meetings and total
hours of planned small group meetings. This process is expected
to increase the number of new ideas generated in term of
sustainable maintenance practices (Parida and Chattopadhyay,
2007).
Table 4.26: Operational Definition of SMP Indicators with Respect to Health and
Safety Perspective
Health and Safety
How can be done to ensure that sustainable maintenance activities to safety incidents in within
tolerable limits? (Mather, 2005)
HS1 Lost time injury rate Lost time injury rate measures how frequent lost time injuries are
occurring. It refers to the number of lost-time occurrences of work
related to injury or illness (including fatalities) for each one
million exposure (work) hours worked. It is a more precise
measure of risk in that it relates the number of injuries and/or
illnesses to the actual period of exposure to hazards (Dampier to
Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline, 2009).
135
Table 4.26: Operational Definition of SMP Indicators with Respect to Health and
Safety Perspective (continued)
Health and Safety
How can be done to ensure that sustainable maintenance activities to safety incidents in within
tolerable limits? (Mather, 2005)
HS1.1 Recordable injury Recordable injury rate measures the frequency of recordable
rate injuries i.e. the total number of fatalities, lost time injuries, medical
treatment injuries and restricted work injuries occurring. It
expressed as the total number of recordable injury per million hours
worked (Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline, 2009).
HS1.1.1 Safety attitude This indicator compares number of recordable injuries caused by
safety attitude and total of recordable injuries. Safety attitude refers
to working behaviour where the worker uses the necessary Personal
Protective Equipment (PPE) and does not take obvious risks. PPE
important for maintenance workers who work in potentially
dangerous environments or with potentially dangerous equipment.
The use of PPE in maintenance activities enables accident
prevention. Workers would also require some training on when and
how best these PPE should be used (Pintelon and Muchiri, 2009).
HS1.1.2 Toxic spare part This indicator compares number of recordable injuries caused by
toxic spare parts and total of recordable injuries. Maintenance
activities should use the lower impact materials including spare
parts in order to minimize negative impacts to the human health
(Yuan et al., 2012).
HS1.1.3 Toxic lubricant This indicator compares number of recordable injuries caused by
toxic lubricant and total of recordable injuries. Sustainable
maintenance requires using of non-toxic lubricant in terms of
human health and safety. It enables decreasing total of recordable
injuries (Ajukumar and Gandhi, 2013).
HS1.1.4 Toxic cleanser This indicator compares number of recordable injuries caused by
toxic cleanser and total of recordable injuries. Sustainable
maintenance requires using of non-toxic cleanser in terms of human
health and safety. It enables decreasing total of recordable injuries
(Ajukumar and Gandhi, 2013).
HS2 Unsafe health and This indicator measures the percentage of unsafe health and safety
safety practices practices related to planned and unplanned maintenance activities.
Moreover, it indicates the compliance maintenance activities with
the regulations, standards, or policies (Lind and Nenonen, 2008).
HS2.1 Physical working This indicator measures the percentage of unsafe health and safety
environment practices with respect to physical working environment. The
physical working environment should make it possible to work
safely (Lind and Nenonen, 2008).
HS2.1.1 Workplace noise This indicator measures the percentage of unsafe health and safety
level practices with respect to workplace noise level. The company has
to ensure that no employee is exposed to noise above of 85 dB(A)
for 8 hours, or a peak sound pressure level of 140 dB (WorkSafe
Victoria, 2005). Department of Labour New Zealand (2002) has
developed the procedure and tool for assessing noise hazards.
HS2.1.2 Lighting and This indicator measures the percentage of unsafe health and safety
ventilation practices with respect to lighting and ventilation. Health and Safety
Executive (2002) has developed the procedure to measure and
resolve (eliminate or reduce) health and safety risks from lighting
hazards. Moreover, different activities require different minimum
lighting recommendation as proposed by Health and Safety
Executive (2002).
136
Table 4.27: Operational Definition of SMP Indicators with Respect to Employee

Satisfaction Perspective
Employee Satisfaction
How can be done to ensure the employee satisfied with sustainable maintenance work environment?
EM1 Employee turn-over The employee turn-over rate represents the employee motivation
rate and satisfaction level. Furthermore, this indicator describes the
effectiveness of the organizational work culture (Parida and
EM1.1 Employee This indicator indicates satisfaction rate of employee. The
satisfaction rate company can apply the survey or small group meeting in order to
identify employee satisfaction (Parida and Chattopadhyay, 2007).
EM1.1.1 Employee This indicator measures the number of employee complaints
complaints during the year. It reflects the effectiveness of the sustainable
human resource management (Parida and Chattopadhyay, 2007).
Table 4.28: Operational Definition of SMP Indicators with Respect to Stakeholder

Satisfaction Perspective
Stakeholder Satisfaction
How can be done to ensure the stakeholders satisfied in terms of sustainable maintenance activities?
ST1 Stakeholders – This indicator measures the number of stakeholders-company
company partnership partnership during the year. In order to become a sustainable
in terms of company, the company has to keep a positive relationship with
sustainable the stakeholders. The company and stakeholders can conduct
maintenance activities in order to become more environmentally benign
practices (Chengcheng Fan et al., 2010)
ST1.1 Stakeholders This indicator indicates satisfaction rate of stakeholders. The
satisfaction rate company can apply the survey or small group meeting in order to
identify stakeholder satisfaction (Chengcheng Fan et al., 2010).
ST1.1.1 Stakeholders This indicator indicates the number of stakeholder’s complaints
complaints during the year. A comparison with the past values can also
indicate the improvement achieved. This indicator is subjective
and cannot be measured directly (Parida and Chattopadhyay,
2007).
4.7 Summary
This chapter has presented the survey results on the implementation of

SMPM systems for Malaysian automotive companies. It began with the background
of company which is related to general information, maintenance management, and
SMM. The survey results revealed that Malaysian automotive companies considered
maintenance management systems as a critical business function in enhancing
company’s performance. However, SMM systems have not been truly considered as
a crucial part in Malaysian automotive companies. Hence, the Malaysian automotive
137
companies need to initiate incorporating sustainable maintenance initiatives in

responding the global competitive pressure. The survey results also revealed that
company’s image is the strongest motivation in implementing SMM initiatives in
Malaysian automotive companies.
In this research, reliability and validity tests were employed to fulfill the
measurement quality. The reliability test results indicate that 78 SMP indicators are
statistically reliable and were retained for validity test. In the next step, the EFA was
applied to establish construct validity. The results suggested omitting 7 of 78
indicators for further analysis. Then, the PLS-SEM conducted to validate the EFA
results. The results provided support evidence for SMPM framework’s reliability
and validity.
Based on the full survey results, nine perspectives with 71 indicators have
been proposed as compared to the initial SMPM framework which is eight
perspectives with 78 indicators. The indicators would be used in the next stage of
the research, in developing a measurement guideline of SMPM systems for
CHAPTER 5
DEVELOPMENT OF MEASUREMENT GUIDELINE
5.1 Introduction
This chapter presents a detail explanation of the development of SMPM

system guideline. This process begins with constructing the hierarchical structure.
In the next step, the weights of factors, perspectives, and indicators were calculated
using the AHP method. Finally, the performance scores of perspectives, factors, and
overall sustainable maintenance practices were determined using the Microsoft
Excel-based software and at the same time the level of performance were classified
to offer better management decision-making process. Figure 5.1 describes the stages
for development of SMPM system guideline. The first stage which is constructing
the hierarchy framework is presented in the following section.
5.2 Constructing the Hierarchical Structure
This research begins with the development of a conceptual framework of

SMPM for automotive companies based on previous studies. The preliminary
SMPM framework has been constructed by integrating, adapting, and modifying
maintenance performance indicators, sustainability performance indicators from
relevant literature and at the same time take into consideration the three pillar of
sustainability consisting of economic, environmental, and social as described in
Chapter 2. As a result, the preliminary framework consists of eight perspectives and
78 indicators were developed.
139
Constructing the hierarchical •Defining the objective and the criteria

structure •Establishing a hierarchical structure
•Conducting the pairwise comparisons of the criteria

•Constructing the pairwise comparison matrix
Determining the weight of SMP criteria
using AHP methodology
•Calculating CR
•Computing the relative importance weight
•Ranking the critical indicators
•Rating the score of indicators

•Calculating the performance score of perspectives, factors,
SMPM
and sustainable maintenance practices
•Classifying the performance level
Figure 5.1 The stages for development of SMPM guideline
The preliminary SMPM framework was then validated through an industry

survey in Malaysian automotive companies. The results provided support evidence
for SMP framework’s reliability and validity. Moreover, the validated results also
showed that 9 perspectives have been identified with 71 indicators as compared to
initial SMPM framework which is 8 perspectives with 78 indicators, which are then
used in development a hierarchy framework for measuring SMP. The stages in
constructing the hierarchy framework are presented in the following sections.
5.2.1 Defining the Objective and the Criteria
The first stage in constructing a hierarchy framework is to define the

objective and criteria of this study. The objective of this study is to investigate the
critical indicators for SMP in Malaysian automotive companies. The criteria are the
proposed 71 SMP indicators which are divided into three factors and nine
perspectives.
140
5.2.2 Establishing a Hierarchical Structure
In the AHP approach, a problem is structured as a hierarchy showing the

relationship between goal and criteria. Figure 5.2 shows the hierarchical structure of
SMP where the framework is breakdown into six levels. The first level is SMP
which is set as a goal. The second level consists of three pillars of sustainability, i.e.
economic, environmental, and social. The perspectives of SMP were structured at
the third level; there are nine perspectives of cost effectiveness, quality, productivity,
resources efficiency, pollution and waste, learning and growth, health and safety,
employee satisfaction, and stakeholder satisfaction. The fourth level consists of 14
indicators at the corporate level. At the fifth level, there are 19 indicators for the
tactical level. Finally, the sixth level involves 38 indicators at the functional level.
5.3 Determining the Weight of SMP Criteria Using AHP Methodology
After the development of SMP hierarchical structure, the importance weights

of the SMP indicators need to be calculated using AHP methodology. Initially, a
pairwise comparison questionnaire was then designed and sent out to industrial
experts in aiming to determine the relative importance weight of SMP indicators.
The 1 to 9 scale introduced by Saaty was applied to specify the preferences of the
experts. After 15 completed responses were received, consistency check was
conducted for each response using the Expert Choice software (Delbari et al., 2016).
If the CR is below the threshold value of 0.1, the response can be accepted for further
analysis. However, in this survey was found some of the responses consistency
ratios out of the acceptable range. Therefore, the researchers need to execute the
process as proposed by Saaty (2008) in order to make the consistency value falls into
the acceptable level. Finally, 5 of 15 responses were excluded for further analysis.
141
Figure 5.2 Hierarchical structure of SMPM
142
Figure 5.2 Hierarchical structure of SMPM (continued)
143
Figure 5.2 Hierarchical structure of SMPM (continued)
144
In the next step, a pairwise comparison matrix was developed for each expert.
The final pairwise comparison matrix for 10 experts was conducted using the
Microsoft Excel software to calculate the Geometric Mean of experts’ judgments.
Next, the CR was checked for each pairwise comparison. In the last step, the Expert
Choice software was used to specify the local and global weight of each SMP
indicator. The details of the AHP processes are described in the following sections.
5.3.1 Conducting the Pairwise Comparison of the Criteria
In this research, 22 pairwise comparisons were conducted to specify the

relative importance amongst factors of the SMPM system, the relative importance
amongst perspectives of the SMP factors, and the relative importance amongst
indicators of the SMP perspectives. A Saaty’s nine-point scale (1 = equally
importance, 3 = moderate importance, 5 = strong importance, 7 = very strong or
demonstrated importance, 9 = extreme importance) was applied to represent expert’s
preferences. For example, determine the pairwise comparison amongst three factors
(economic, environmental, and social) of the SMPM system. The question asked to
the experts was: “In order to evaluate sustainable maintenance performance, how
much is the factor on the left column more important than the factor on the right
column?”. Table 5.1 was used to determine the preferences (judgments) from the
experts.
Table 5.1: The pairwise comparison of the SMP factors

Factors 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Factors
Economic x Environmental
Economic x Social
Environmental x Social
145
5.3.2 Constructing the Pairwise Comparison Matrix
In the next step, Geometric Mean of the ten expert’s judgments was
calculated for constructing the final comparison matrix. For example, the pairwise
comparison matrix (A) of the factors of SMPM system as below:
[ ]
All the diagonal values of the matrix (A) are equal to 1 since the elements are
compared with themselves. The values of elements in the upper triangular matrix (A)
are obtained from the geometric mean of pairwise comparisons (10 experts) and the
reciprocals of these values are presented in the lower triangular matrix.
5.3.3 Calculating Consistency Ratio
After constructing the pairwise comparisons matrix, author needs to calculate

the CR value to prove the validity of the experts’ judgments. The first step is
building the normalized pairwise comparison matrix (A1) from matrix (A) by dividing
the sum of the elements in the column as follow:
[ ]
The second step is calculating average of each row of the normalized matrix
(A1) to determine the relative importance weights matrix (W) as the eigenvector of
the SMP factors as below:
146
[ ] [ ]
The next steps are multiplying the pairwise comparison matrix (A) with the
relative importance weight matrix (W) and then divide the resultant matrix (A2) by
the relative importance weights matrix (W) as follow:
[ ] [ ] [ ]
[ ] [ ] [ ]
Finally, calculating the average of the final matrix (A3) and the results λmax is
3.006 as the largest eigenvalue. The Consistency Index (CI) of the three SMP factors
is calculated and the CR is then computed where Random Consistency Index (RI) for
the three elements (n=3) is 0.52 (see Table 3.8).
 max  n  3.006  3
n  1 3  1
CI 0.003
CR    0.006
RI 0.52
Since the CR for three factors of SMPM system were 0.006 (less than 0.05),
thus the decision making is consistent with the pairwise comparisons.
In the next step, the consistency check was performed to all 22 pairwise
comparison matrix using Expert Choice software. The CR values ranged from 0.000
to 0.040, indicating all the pairwise comparisons are consistent since the CR values
fall into the acceptable level. These results also revealed that the ten experts have
assigned their judgments consistently in determining the importance weights of the
indictors for evaluating SMP in Malaysian automotive industry.
147
5.3.4 Computing the Relative Importance Weight and Ranking the Critical
Indicators
The relative importance weights of SMP indicators can be obtained by

evaluating eigenvector or matrix (W) as explained above. This research used Expert
Choice software to determine all relative importance weight values. Figure 5.3
presents the local and global weights of SMP elements. The weights of the
indicators also enable to identify the critical indicators at the entire organization
levels (corporate, tactical, and functional), thus practitioners can take the best and
accurate action related to assets management. The next section discusses the results
of relative weights of SMP elements (factors, perspectives, and indicators).
148
Legend:
L = Local weight
G = Global weight
Figure 5.3 The local and global relative weights of SMP measures
149
Legend:
L = Local weight
G = Global weight
Figure 5.3 The local and global relative weights of SMP measures (continued)
Legend:
L = Local weight
G = Global weight
Figure 5.3 The local and global relative weights of SMP measures (continued)
151
5.4 The Analysis of AHP Results
Figure 5.4 presents the relative importance weights amongst SMP factors.
The findings point out that environmental factor was considered as the most
important factor in evaluating SMP for Malaysian automotive companies with a
relative weight of 37.2%. This is followed by economic factor and social factor with
the relative importance of 35.4% and 27.4%, respectively. In contrast, Amrina
(2013) in her research which focused on sustainable manufacturing performance
found that Malaysian automotive companies focused more on the economic factor,
while the environmental factor was considered as the least important factor in
evaluating sustainable manufacturing performance. It indicates that environmental
factor is becoming more important in measuring sustainable performance since
Malaysian automotive companies have initiated to incorporate environmental
initiatives in delivering best management practices.
Figure 5.4 Relative importance weights of SMP factors
Furthermore, these results also reveal that Malaysian automotive companies

have begun to regard the three pillars of sustainability as of equal importance as
evident from the evidence of difference between the economic and environmental
factors is only marginally different. Länsiluoto and Järvenpää (2008) recognized the
positive relationship between environmental and cost, where the proper
implementation of environmental management initiative enables enhancing
profitability. Moreover, Dias-Sardinha and Reijnders (2005) also revealed the
positive relationship between environmental performance and social performance. In
addition, Liyanage et al. (2009) stated the company needs to consider three main
factors of sustainability (economic, environmental, and social) in evaluating
maintenance performance in order to comply with sustainable company performance,
152
thus the status of a sustainable company can be achieved. The using of balanced
financial and non-financial measures enables the company to consider more positive
outcomes (Jusoh et al., 2008).
Economic factor plays a critical function in sustainability compliance since

the company needs to operate profitability yet sustainability (Liyanage et al., 2009;
Lei, 2012). Figure 5.5 shows that quality perspective was regarded as the most
important perspective (42.9%) over other perspectives with respect to economic
factor. It is followed by productivity perspective (30.3%) and cost effectiveness
perspective (26.8%), respectively. The proper maintenance management program
execution assists physical assets in achieving better quality performance, thus the
process will be ensured smooth running without unexpected interruption (Rotab
Khan and Darrab, 2010). Consequently, the company enables to produce more with
high quality in order to create competitive advantage in terms of economic point of
view.
Figure 5.5 Relative importance weights of SMP perspectives on economic factor
Figure 5.6 shows the relative importance values of SMP perspectives with
respect to environmental factor. It indicates that resource efficiency perspective
(62.4%) was considered as the most important perspective in evaluating SMP for
Malaysian automotive companies, followed by pollution and waste perspective
(37.6%). These results are in line with the previous research in evaluating SMP for
Malaysian automotive companies where resource utilization was regarded as the
most important criteria (Amrina and Yusof, 2012). Similarly, Ajukumar and Ghandi
(2013) stated that maintenance processes need to be executed in shorter downtime
and optimum resources utilization. Additionally, Gernuks (2011); Despeisse et al.
(2012) also supported resource efficiency as the way to reduce negative
153
environmental impact in the manufacturing field. These results show that

maintenance objective as a support function is in line with the overall manufacturing
objective in order to achieve the status of a sustainable company.
Figure 5.6 Relative importance weights of SMP perspectives on environmental

factor
Figure 5.7 presents the relative importance weight amongst perspectives of

social factor. This result regards health and safety as the most importance
perspective with a relative importance weight of 37.1%. It is followed by learning
and growth perspective (28.5%), stakeholder satisfaction (17.8%), and employee
satisfaction (16.7%), respectively. Moreover, Lind and Nenonen (2008) suggested
incorporating safety planning in executing maintenance operations for accident
prevention. As health and safety issues are mandated by law and regulated by
various government agencies, companies must consider these issues as important or
face the consequences of being negligent. Thus, the company can enhance the
achievement level of SMP in order to create competitive advantages in terms of
social factor.
Figure 5.7 Relative importance weights of SMP perspectives on social factor

154
Figure 5.8 shows the relative importance weight amongst SMP indicators at
the corporate level with regard to cost effectiveness perspective, where Malaysian
automotive companies considered maintenance budget as the most important
indicator in measuring SMP. Zaim et al., (2012) stated that strong business
competition leads the company to focus more on operation and maintenance cost
reduction program. The companies need to plan and control maintenance cost since
it can reach 15-70% of total manufacturing cost (Bevilacqua and Braglia, 2000). In
addition, the proportional total maintenance cost as a percentage of total
manufacturing cost should be less than 10-15% (Raouf, 2009).
Figure 5.8 Relative importance weights of SMP indicators on cost effectiveness

perspective
Figure 5.9 describes the relative importance weight of SMP indicators at the
tactical level, where preventive maintenance cost indicator (51.5%) was regarded
much more important over other indicators with respect to maintenance budget
indicator at the corporate level. It is followed by corrective maintenance cost
indicator (25.8%) and maintenance cost/ unit indicator (22.7%), respectively. Hence,
preventive maintenance is highly regarded by the companies surveyed. Preventive
maintenance enables to reduce the frequency of failures and unexpected shutdown
(Chelsom et al., 2005). Furthermore, the company has to view preventive
maintenance as a vital function in achieving overall cost efficiency and profitability
(Mirghani, 2009). Therefore, the company is required to ensure proper work
preparation, proper labor skill, proper material, and tools in delivering preventive
maintenance tasks, which thus direct maintenance cost can be minimized in order to
achieve reduction of total maintenance budget (Crespo Márquez et al., 2009).
155
Figure 5.9 Relative importance weights of SMP indicators on maintenance budget

indicator
Figure 5.10 shows the relative importance weight of SMP indicators at the
functional level with respect to preventive maintenance cost indicator at the tactical
level. These results confirm that direct material (spare part) cost (44.8%) was
considered as the most important indicator in measuring SMP for Malaysian
automotive companies. It is followed by direct maintenance labor cost indicator and
overhead cost indicator with the relative importance of 35.4% and 19.7%,
respectively. Similarly, Bornschlegl et al. (2015) defined the maintenance and spare
parts as one of the main cost drivers of manufacturing technologies. The main
objective of preventive maintenance task is to minimize equipment downtime at the
same time minimize total cost of inspection and repair (Mirghani, 2009). Therefore,
the maintenance planner is required to ensure availability of material (spare part)
through effective communication with materials management, which thus the
preventive maintenance tasks enable to be conducted on scheduled in avoiding
unnecessary equipment downtime.
Figure 5.10 Relative importance weights of SMP indicators on preventive

maintenance cost indicator
156
Figure 5.11 presents the relative importance weight of SMP indicators at the
functional level with regard to corrective maintenance cost indicator in evaluating
SMP. It reveals direct maintenance labor cost as the most important indicator with a
relative importance value of 39.4%, followed by direct material cost (37.7%) and
overhead cost (22.9%), respectively. Maintenance labor is a critical factor when
executing corrective maintenance task since it requires the high skill labor
(maintenance expert) in planning and controlling maintenance process (Zaim et al.,
2012). Moreover, Hamimi Abdul Razak et al. (2012) stated that corrective
maintenance tasks are mostly non-repetitive and have more variability, thus it is
important to provide proper specialized training for increasing the skill of
maintenance labor.
Figure 5.11 Relative importance weights of SMP indicators on corrective

maintenance cost indicator
Figure 5.12 shows the relative importance weight amongst SMP indicators at
the functional level with regard to overall department effectiveness. These results
showed OEE as the most important indicator with a relative importance value of
22%. It is followed by performance rate (19%), mean time between failures (17.7%),
quality rate (16.6%), number of breakdowns (13.1%), and availability (11.7%),
respectively. OEE is a vital indicator in measuring the single asset performance
(Nachiappan and Anantharaman, 2006). Today, the companies face the critical
problem related to a low OEE value (15-25% below the target level) (Parida et al.,
2015). Moreover, the companies need to achieve 85% of OEE value in order to
achieve world class maintenance performance (Ahuja, 2009).
157
Figure 5.12 Relative importance weights of SMP indicators on overall department

effectiveness indicator
Figure 5.13 presents the relative importance weights of SMP indicators at the
tactical level with respect to maintenance efficiency indicator at the corporate level.
The results highlight that Malaysian automotive companies were considered
preventive maintenance task indicator (83.9%) much more important than corrective
maintenance task indicator (16.1%) in evaluating SMP. Raouf (2009) stated that
total of planned maintenance tasks should be higher than 90% of total maintenance
task. Furthermore, enhancing the proportion of preventive maintenance tasks
enables to reduce corrective maintenance as unplanned maintenance tasks, which
thus maintenance efficiency can be increased to achieve the higher productivity level
(Narayan, 2012).
Figure 5.13 Relative importance weights of SMP indicators on maintenance

efficiency indicator
The relative importance weight of SMP indicators with respect to preventive

maintenance task indicator is presented in Figure 5.14. Preventive maintenance task
is executed before systems failure by applying systematic inspection and detection in
158
preventing failures, which thus item specified condition enables to be retained

(Wang, 2002). The results specify that maintenance program achievement indicator
at the functional level was perceived more important (60.85%) than start up after
shutdown indicator (39.2%) in evaluating SMP for Malaysian automotive companies
with regard to preventive maintenance task indicator at the tactical level. According
to Cholasuke et al., (2004), the companies have to accomplish 90% of scheduled
maintenance program in order to achieve the status of maintenance excellence.
Furthermore, Narayan (2012) suggested that maintenance program needs to be
planned and scheduled properly, thus the using of resources (material, labor, and
overhead) and downtime can be reduced so as increasing the maintenance efficiency.
Figure 5.14 Relative importance weights of SMP indicators on preventive

maintenance task indicator
Figure 5.15 presents the relative importance of SMP indicators at the

functional level with respect to corrective maintenance task indicator at the tactical
level. The results indicate that Malaysian automotive companies regarded quality for
maintenance task (rework) as the most important indicator with an importance value
of 40.1%, followed by response time for maintenance (31.9%) and mean time to
repair (27.9%), respectively. Corrective maintenance, which is well known as
breakdown maintenance, fire-fighting maintenance or failure based maintenance,
was considered as a feasible maintenance strategy in a position where customer
demand exceeds supply and profit margins are large (Sharma et al., 2005). However,
current situations have forced companies to proceed more effective and reliable
maintenance strategy since increasing global competition and small profit margin
(Wang et al., 2007). Moreover, corrective maintenance tasks need to be reduced in
order to avoid damage of facilities, workers, and the environment, thus the corrective
159
maintenance tasks should be less than 10% of total maintenance tasks (Wang et al.,
2007; Raouf, 2009).
Figure 5.15 Relative importance weights of SMP indicators on corrective

maintenance task indicator
Figure 5.16 represents the relative importance values of SMP indicators with
regard to resources saving indicator, where total of spare parts used was considered
as the most important indicator in measuring SMP for Malaysian automotive
companies. This result also reveals that the importance value of total spare parts
used (36.5%) and total of lubricants consumption (34.3%) are slightly different.
Therefore, reduction of these indicators as the material for maintenance execution is
crucial in enhancing resources saving. These results are supported by previous
research which pointed out that the implementation of environmental management
system leads to an intensive capital company to create competitive advantage in
terms of resources by reducing the material usage (González et al., 2008).
Figure 5.16 Relative importance weights of SMP indicators on resources saving

indicator
160
Figure 5.17 reveals the relative importance value of SMP indicators with
respect to total of spare parts used indicator, where original spare parts used (50.7%)
was considered as the most important indicator in measuring SMP for Malaysian
automotive companies. It is followed by recycled spare parts used indicator,
remanufactured spare parts used, and re-purposed spare parts used, with the
importance value of 18.1%, 16.1%, and 15.1, respectively. The results also indicate
that reducing of original spare parts used is vital in achieving resource efficiency.
Similarly, Despeisse et al., (2012) argued that environmental improvement can be
done through resource use reduction tactic before coming to a resource substitution
tactic (recycled, remanufactured, and re-purposed) as likely high cost. Additionally,
the substitution resources have to be more efficient or a less environmentally
damaging (Despeisse et al., 2013).
Figure 5.17 Relative importance weights of SMP indicators on total of spare parts
used indicator
Figure 5.18 presents the relative importance weight of SMP indicators at the
functional level with affection to total of energy consumption indicator at the tactical
level. The results show that renewable energy consumption indicator (62.75%) has
perceived much more important than non-renewable energy consumption indicator
(37.3%) in reducing the total of energy consumption for Malaysian automotive
companies. Prudent energy usage is one of the crucial factors to reduce
environmental problems (Al-Najjar, 2012). Al-Ghanim (2003) stated that there is a
scarcity of energy resources, and the using of energy will lead to environmental
pollution. According to AASA (2011), non-renewable energy still used as the main
resource (91.5%) compared to renewable energy (8.5%) in amongst of Asian
161
countries, including Malaysia. Therefore, the companies need to apply more

integrated way by reducing the total of energy consumption while at the same time
attempt to increase the usage of renewable energy compare to non-renewable energy
in achieving resource efficiency and become more environmentally benign
(Despeisse et al., 2012). Moreover, proper maintenance management execution
enables to reduce failure rate, which thus machine warming and re-start-up energy
can be reduced in order to achieve a highly significant saving of energy consumption
(Al-Ghanim, 2003).
Figure 5.18 Relative importance weights of SMP indicators on total of energy

consumption indicator
Figure 5.19 presents the relative importance value of SMP indicators with
respect to environmental illegal cases, where air pollution index (41.6%) was
regarded as the most critical indicator in reducing environmental illegal cases for
Malaysian automotive companies. It is followed by water pollution indicator (30%)
and land contamination indicator (28.4%), respectively. These results supported by
the fact that air pollution index associated with carbon emission is becoming more
important for many countries since the introduction of carbon trading systems (Ball
et al., 2009). Additionally, Despeisse et al. (2012) argued that manufacturing
processes cannot be “zero” carbon emission, including maintenance activity as a
support function. However, carbon emission can be reduced through taking full
advantage of resource productivity and increasing the use of substitution resources,
i.e. renewable resources and non-toxic resources (Despeisse et al., 2012).
162
Figure 5.19 Relative importance weights of SMP indicators on environmental illegal

cases indicator
Ajukumar and Ghandi (2013) stated that the use of lubricants and cleanser
will be toxic to the aquatic organisms. Figure 5.20 indicates the relative importance
weight of SMP indicators with regard to water pollution. The results show that total
of bio-degradable lubricants consumption indicator (65.9%) was perceived to be
much more important than total of bio-degradable cleanser consumption indicator
(34.1%). It is supported by the facts that lubricants which are consumed more than
cleanser in executing maintenance activities, thus lubricants pose higher potential to
pollute the water. Therefore, using bio-degradable lubricants are crucial for reducing
the water pollution (Ajukumar and Ghandi, 2013).
Figure 5.20 Relative importance weights of SMP indicators on water pollution

indicator
Components are one of the main materials for executing maintenance

processes. However, the use of components during maintenance process creates
landfill problems (Ajukumar and Ghandi, 2013). Figure 5.21 shows the relative
importance value of SMP indicators with respect to land contamination indicator.
The results indicate that total of bio-degradable component used (53.5%) was
163
considered more important over total of hazardous waste produced indicator (46.5%)
in reducing land contamination. Hence, bio-degradable components should be used
in reducing land contamination (Ajukumar and Ghandi, 2013).
Figure 5.21 Relative importance weights of SMP indicators on land contamination

indicator
Figure 5.22 describes the relative importance weight of SMP indicators at the
corporate level with regard to learning and growth perspective. The results indicate
that skill improvement related to sustainable maintenance practices indicator (59.2%)
is more important than innovations carried out related to sustainable maintenance
indicator (40.8%) for Malaysian automotive companies in measuring SMP. In fact,
the concept of SMP is relatively new in Malaysian automotive companies. So, the
companies required to educate this new concept to all employees at the entire
organization levels. Therefore, skill improvement related to sustainable maintenance
practices as the continuous improvement process is to be shown as the effective way
in delivering this concept and in turn improvement of SMP can be achieved (Maletič
et al., 2012). Moreover, the companies need to identify important skill and
knowledge for employees, thus the suitable training can be conducted for all
maintenance people at the entire organization levels for establishing an appropriate
skill base (Gebauer et al., 2008). Thus, the continuous improvement process can
lead to reduce the maintenance cost and increase the equipment availability (Gebauer
et al., 2008).
164
Figure 5.22 Relative importance weights of SMP indicators on learning and growth
perspective
Figure 5.23 illustrates the relative importance weight of SMP indicators with
respect to health and safety perspective. These results point out that unsafe health
and safety practices indicator was counted as the most important indicator with a
relative weight of 50.7%. It is followed by lost time injury rate indicator with a
relative weight of 49.3%. Unsafe health and safety practices indicator is very critical
in achieving health and safety performance where reducing this indicator enables to
prevent the accident during execution of maintenance operations. In addition, Lind
and Nenonen (2008) publicized that unsafe health and safety practices, i.e. working
while a machine is in motion; dangerous working practice; ignoring the rules and
instructions as the top factors contributing to severe and fatal accidents. Therefore,
reducing these factors enable to facilitate the company to achieve better health and
safety performance in order to ensure plant and process safety (Pintelon and Muchiri,
2009).
Figure 5.23 Relative importance weights of SMP indicators on health and safety
perspective
165
Figure 5.24 shows the relative importance weight of safety attitude indicator
(59%) to be much more important over others with respect to recordable injury rate
indicator. It is followed by toxic lubricants (14.9%), toxic spare parts (13.2%), and
toxic cleanser (12.9%). These results indicate that safety attitude indicator is very
critical in reducing injury rate. Maintenance workers need to know relevant safety
information, i.e. how to use the proper personal protective equipment; how the
maintenance process can be done safely, hence maintenance workers having good
attitude during execution of maintenance process. Additionally, the company also
needs to protect the maintenance workers from toxic materials to reduce injury. The
previous research conducted by Pintelon and Muchiri (2009) revealed that better
maintenance implementation can reduce rate of injury. Moreover, the management
has to give more attention and support in promoting good safety attitude culture
amongst maintenance workers, thus maintenance workers can work safely and
qualify to identify hazardous condition independently (Lind and Nenonen, 2008).
Figure 5.24 Relative importance weights of SMP indicators on recordable injury rate
indicator
The relative importance weight of SMP indicators with respect to physical

working environment indicator is presented in Figure 5.25. The results show that
lighting and ventilation indicator with a relative weight of 52.7% was considered
more important than workplace noise level indicator with a relative weight 47.3%.
According to Health and Safety Executive (2002), poor lighting at work leads to
negative health and safety of maintenance workers. It causes eye strain, migraine,
headaches, and poor concentration. Moreover, poor lighting also affects the business
costs since it enables to reduce workers efficiency and productivity. In addition,
166
Lind and Nenonen (2008) suggested that condition of the physical working
environment have to assure the maintenance workers work safely, thus the accident
can be prevented during maintenance execution.
Figure 5.25 Relative importance weights of SMP indicators on physical working

environment indicator
5.5 Global Weight with Respect to Evaluating Sustainable Maintenance

Performance
Figure 5.26 presents the global weight of SMP indicators. The results show
total of lubricants consumption indicator (8%), total of greenhouse gas emissions
indicator (5.8%), maintenance program achievement indicator (5.5%), stakeholder
complaints indicator (4.9%), training hours per employee indicator (4.6%), and
employee complaints indicator as the top five important indicators in evaluating SMP
for Malaysian automotive companies.
Total of lubricants consumption was regarded as the most critical indicator in

achieving the excellent level of SMP. Necessary maintenance activities need to be
delivered in order to reduce the use of lubricants (Ajukumar and Ghandi, 2013). The
company needs to prudent in using of lubricants (as one of the main resources in
delivering maintenance activities) and at the same time use the biodegradable
lubricants in order to become more environmentally benign.
167
Figure 5.26 The global weight of SMP indicators

168
5.6 Relationships among Sustainable Maintenance Objectives
In this study, the relationships among sustainable maintenance objectives at

the corporate level have been determined through literature review as presented in
Figure 2.22 (page 49). Then, these relationships have been verified by five industrial
experts where their comments are summarized in Table 5.2. The relationships have
been modified based on the comments and suggestions as presented in Figure 5.27.
Table 5.2: Comments on the relationships of sustainable maintenance objectives

No Initial Name Comments
1 ZBI - To consider the relationship between “increase the stakeholders-
company partnership in terms of sustainable maintenance practices”
and “increase the return on eco-friendly maintenance investment and
innovations”.
2 HH - To consider the relationship between quality and failure.
3 AR - To consider the relationship between “reduce the unsafe health and

safety practices” and “increase the return on eco-friendly maintenance
investment and innovations”
- To consider the relationship between “reduce the environmental
illegal cases” and “increase the return on eco-friendly maintenance
investment and innovations”.
4 KMJ - To consider the relationship between “improve the resources saving”

and “reduce the environmental illegal cases”.
- To reconsider the relationship between “employ the computerized
maintenance management system” and “increase the stakeholders-
company partnership in terms of sustainable maintenance practices”.
5 KL - To consider the relationship between “reduce the maintenance

budget” and “increase the return on eco-friendly maintenance
investment and innovations”.
169
Figure 5.27 Sustainable maintenance objectives

170
5.7 Sustainable Maintenance Performance Measurement
The next stage in developing measurement guideline is to measure the SMP.

This process needs the weights of factors, perspectives, and indicators have been
established in the previous process. The first step is to rate the indicators at the entire
organization levels. A-five point Likert scale range from 1 (low performance) to 5
(high performance) was used in determining the score for each indicator. In the next
step, the score of perspectives was calculated by combining the scores with the
weights of the indicators. Then, the score of factors was obtained by combining the
scores with the weights of the perspectives. Finally, the overall performance score of
the SMP practices was computed by combining the scores with the weights of the
factors. The detail process is presented in the following sections.
5.7.1 Rating the Score of Sustainable Maintenance Performance Indicators
The company was asked to evaluate their SMP using the 1 to 5 scale on each
of 71 indicators at the entire organization levels. These values could be used to
identify the performance level of the company. Table 5.3 shows an example of the
performance rating.
The researcher’s initiative to validate the measurement process in existing

Malaysian automotive companies was not preferable to them since most of the
companies would normally classify their actual data as confidential information
which cannot be disclosed to public. Therefore, this study used the published data by
Alsyouf (2006) which were based on the case study have been conducted at
StoraEnso Hylte AB, a paper company in Hyltebruk in southern Sweden. Despite
the industry not related with the automotive industry, the data are still relevant since
they are in manufacturing sector and to be used for measurement verification purpose
only. 11 out of 71 indicators were adopted i.e. maintenance budget, overall plant
effectiveness, overall equipment effectiveness, availability, performance rate, quality
rate, preventive maintenance task, corrective maintenance task, environmental illegal
171
cases, lost time injury rate, recordable injury rate, stakeholder satisfaction, and then
the rest of the data were based on assumption.
Table 5.3: Performance score of the company

Corporate Level Tactical Level Functional Level
Indicators Score Indicators Score Indicators Score
Return on eco-friendly 4
maintenance investment
and innovation
Computerized 4
maintenance
management system
Manufacturing budget 4 Production cost/ unit 4
Maintenance budget 5 Preventive maintenance 4 Direct material cost 4
cost
Direct maintenance labor 4
cost
Overhead cost 5
Corrective maintenance 4 Direct material cost 4
cost
Direct maintenance labor 4
cost
Overhead cost 5
Maintenance cost/ unit 5
Overall plant 5 Overall department 5 Overall equipment 5
effectiveness effectiveness effectiveness
Availability 5
Performance rate 5
Quality rate 5
Mean time between failures 5
Number of breakdowns 5
Maintenance efficiency 5 Preventive maintenance 5 Maintenance program 5
task achievement
Start up after shutdown 5
Corrective maintenance 5 Quality for maintenance 5
task task (rework)
Response time for 5
maintenance
Mean time to repair 5
Resources saving 4 Total of spare parts used 4 Original spare parts used 4
Recycled spare parts used 4
Re-purposed spare parts 4
used
Remanufactured spare parts 3
used
Total of lubricants 4
consumption
Total of energy 4 Non-renewable energy 4
Renewable energy 4
consumption
172
Table 5.3: Performance score of the company (continued)

Corporate Level Tactical Level Functional Level
Indicators Score Indicators Score Indicators Score
Environmental illegal 4 Water pollution 4 Total of bio-degradable 4
cases lubricants consumption
Total of bio-degradable 4
cleanser consumption
Land contamination 4 Total of bio-degradable 4
components used
Total of hazardous waste 4
produced
Air pollution index 4 Total of greenhouse gas 4
emissions
Skill improvement 4 Training topics 4 Training hours per 5
related employee
to sustainable
maintenance practices
Innovations carried out 4 Innovation suggested 4 Small group meetings/ team 5
related to sustainable work
maintenance
Lost time injury rate 5 Recordable injury rate 5 Safety attitude 4
Toxic spare parts 4
Toxic lubricants 4
Toxic cleanser 4
Unsafe health and safety 4 Physical working 4 Workplace noise level 4
practices environment
Lighting and ventilation 4
Employee turn-over rate 4 Employee satisfaction 4 Employee complaints 4
rate
Stakeholders - company 4 Stakeholders 4 Stakeholder complaints 4

partnership in terms of satisfaction rate
sustainable maintenance
practices
5.7.2 Calculating the Performance Score of Sustainable Maintenance Practices
In this research, the performance score of perspectives, factors, and overall

sustainable maintenance practices is computed using a Microsoft Excel-based
application. The flow chart of calculation process is presented in Figure 5.28.
173
STARTST
ART
Predefined weight;
IWij, PWjk, FWk
i = 1, 2, 3,,.., 71
j = 1, 2, 3,,… , 9
k = 1, 2, 3
INPUT: ISij
𝑁 𝑁
𝑖=
𝐼𝑊𝑖𝑗 𝐼𝑆𝑖𝑗
𝑃𝑆𝑗 𝑁
𝐹𝑆𝑘 𝑃𝑊𝑗𝑘 𝑃𝑆𝑗𝑘
𝑖=
𝐼𝑊𝑖𝑗 𝑗=
𝑆𝑀𝑃 𝐹𝑊𝑘 𝐹𝑆𝑘

𝑘=
Performance Level
Score 4.001-5.000 = Excellent (Blue)
Score 3.001-4.000 = Good (Green)
Score 2.001-3.000 = Fair (Yellow)
Score 0.000-2.000 = Poor (Red)
OUTPUT:
PSj, FSk, SMP
ENDTAR
T
Figure 5.28 Performance score of SMP calculation flow chart
174
The indicators score engendered from the performance rating are combined
with the corresponding importance weights of the indicators to obtain the
performance score of each perspective as follows:
(5.1)
where:
PSj : indicates the performance score of perspective j
IWij : indicates the weight of indicator i belonging to perspective j
ISij : indicates the performance score of indicator i belonging to
perspective j
N : total number of indicators belonging to perspective j
For example, the performance score of quality perspective is calculated using

Equation 5.1 as follows:
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( )
After computing the performance score of each perspective, the performance

score of each factor can be formulated as follows:
(5.2)
=
where:
FSk : indicates the performance score of factor k
PWjk : indicates the weight of perspective j belonging to factor k
PSjk : indicates the performance score of perspective j belonging to factor k
N : total number of perspectives belonging to factor k
175
For example, the performance score of economic factor is calculated using

Equation 5.2 as follows:
( ) ( ) ( )
Finally, the overall performance score of sustainable maintenance practices

can be calculated after computing the performance score of each factor as follows:
∑ = (5.3)
where:
SMP : indicates the overall performance score of sustainable maintenance
practices
FWk : indicates the weight of factor k
FSi : indicates the performance score of factor k
N : total number of factor
For example, the overall performance of sustainable maintenance practices is

calculated using Equation 5.3 as follows:
( ) ( ) ( )
5.7.3 Classifying the Performance Level
The performance score of perspectives, factors, and sustainable maintenance

practices are shown in Table 5.4, Table 5.5, and Table 5.6, at the same time the
visual representation shown in Figure 5.29 and Figure 5.30, respectively. These
scores are then used to identify the performance level and make a decision for
improving or maintaining the performance achievement as described in Table 3.11.
176
The performance results are very important during the management decision
making as a basis for conducting benchmarking. Moreover, it can be used to
compare performance within one company or among different companies.
Table 5.4: Performance of sustainable maintenance perspectives

Performance Performance
Perspectives Explanation
Score Level
Cost Performance exceeds expectation and needs to
4.191 Excellent
effectiveness be maintained.
Performance exceeds expectation and needs to
Quality 5.000 Excellent
be maintained.
Productivity 5.000 Excellent
be maintained.
Resource Performance meets expectation and can be
3.960 Good
efficiency further improved by routine actions.
Pollution Performance meets expectation and can be
4.000 Good
and waste further improved by routine actions
Learning Performance exceeds expectation and needs to
4.400 Excellent
and growth be maintained.
Health and Performance exceeds expectation and needs to
4.299 Excellent
safety be maintained.
Employee Performance meets expectation and can be
4.000 Good
satisfaction further improved by routine actions.
Stakeholders Performance meets expectation and can be
4.000 Good
satisfaction further improved by routine actions.
Cost
effectiveness
5.000
Stakeholders
4.000 Quality
satisfaction
3.000
2.000
Employee 1.000 Productivity
satisfaction
0.000
Health and Resource

safety efficiency
Learning Pollution
and growth and waste
Figure 5.29 Visual representation - performance of sustainable maintenance

perspectives
177
Table 5.5: Performance of sustainable maintenance factors

Performance Performance
Perspectives Statement
Score Level
Economic 4.783 Excellent
be maintained.
Performance meets expectation and can be
Environmental 3.975 Good
further improved by routine actions.
Social 4.229 Excellent
be maintained.
Table 5.6: Overall performance of sustainable maintenance practices

Overall Performance Performance
Statement
sustainable Score Level
maintenance Performance exceeds expectation and needs to
4.331 Excellent
practices be maintained.
5.000
4.500
4.000
3.500
3.000
2.500
2.000
1.500
1.000
0.500
0.000
Economic Environmental Social Overall
Sustainable
Maintenance
Practices
Figure 5.30 Visual representation – overall sustainable maintenance practices and

sustainable maintenance factors
Based on the result of overall performance, it can be concluded that

maintenance performance of the company exceeds expectation and needs to be
maintained. It means that the company can be classified as a first class company.
The company has delivered the maintenance management process in a sustainable
manner. The company has proved maintenance as a source of profit, and at the same
time realized their contribution in reducing environmental problems and enhancing
social development.
178
5.8 Tool Evaluation
In this research, the Microsoft Excel-based tool was evaluated through a

survey-based questionnaire in two Malaysian automotive companies namely Proton
and Perodua. The answers from the respondents were summarized in Table 5.7. The
first question specifies the effectiveness of tool. The respondents believed that tool
will lead to easy quantification of current SMP level. The second question points out
the practicability of tool. The respondents believed that automotive companies will
show interest to use this tool in developing SMPM system and assessing its
implementation.
Table 5.7: Feedback on Microsoft Excel-based tool

No Questions Mean
1 To what extend do you believe that the use of tool leads to easy quantification of 4.5
current SMP level?
2 To what extend do you believe that company managers and competent employees 4.5
will show interest to use this tool?
Furthermore, the general comments of the respondents on the developed tool

also were gathered as listed in Table 5.8. In general, respondents responded
positively on this tool as it is a useful (good and simple) and time saving tool in
developing SMPM system and assessing its implementation. The tool provides the
table and graph as a visual representation to share the information. Moreover, this
tool also establishes a signaling code that enables the company to take a good quality
decision quickly and accurately.
Table 5.8: General comments on Microsoft Excel-based tool

Respondents General Comments
Respondent 1 - The tool is applicable for companies to benchmark their current
condition compared to ideal condition, as it is a good and simple.
Respondent 2 - The tool gives the real conditions towards the company.
- The tool can be used as a basis for the company to improve in either
short or long term plan.
179
5.9 Summary
This chapter has presented the development of SMPM system guideline for
automotive companies. This guideline begins with constructing the hierarchical
structure. The hierarchical structure was established based on the proposed SMP
measures for automotive companies. In the next step, 22 pairwise comparisons were
conducted to specify the relative importance amongst factors of the SMPM system,
the relative importance amongst perspectives of the SMP factors, and the relative
importance amongst indicators of the SMP perspectives, respectively. These values
were computed to determine the importance weights of SMP factors, perspectives,
and indicators using AHP methodology. Next, the performance scores of indicators
were rated using a scale of 1 (low performance) to 5 (high performance). Then, the
performance of perspectives, factors, and overall sustainable maintenance practices
was calculated using Microsoft Excel-based software. Finally, the performance level
was classified to portray the current performance and take appropriate decision in
order to improve the performance achievement. The measurement processes enable
the company to know their strengths and weaknesses, so the proper action can be
delivered in achieving the higher performance so as increasing the competitive
advantages.
CHAPTER 6
DISCUSSION
6.1 Introduction
The aim of this chapter is to discuss findings of the research, how these
findings relate to previous studies. Major and minor contributions to knowledge are
also discussed in this chapter.
6.2 The Findings in Developing the Conceptual Framework
An extensive literature review related to MPM frameworks and sustainability

performance measurement frameworks was undertaken in order to develop a
conceptual framework of SMPM. Upon the reviews on previous frameworks, this
study identified two main issues in developing a proper SMPM framework as
discussed follows.
i. A balanced and integrated framework
Today, maintenance management has emerged to be regarded as a crucial

business function in achieving overall business objectives (Parida and Kumar, 2006).
Upon this phenomenon, the value added created by maintenance management needs
to be planned, controlled, and improved using a balanced and integrated MPM
framework in order to ensure its positive contribution in achieving overall business
objectives (Simões et al., 2011).
181
This study found that existing MPM frameworks were more concentrated on
traditional maintenance measures (financial-based) in measuring value added created
by maintenance management function. They regarded financial aspect as the main
focus in developing MPM framework, such as Swanson (2001); Duffua and Haroun
(2009); Mirghani (2009), and Muchiri et al. (2011).
On the other hand, Cholasuke et al. (2004) have attempted to take into
consideration financial and non-financial aspects when developing a MPM
framework. Moreover, in order to provide the holistic outlook of maintenance
performance, several researchers have adopted BSC approach, such as Tsang
(1998), Tsang et al. (1999), Kutucuoglu et al. (2001), Liyanage and Kumar (2003),
Mather (2005), Alsyouf (2006), Parida and Chattopadhyay (2007), Liyanage et al.
(2009), and Parida (2012).
Currently, sustainability appears as the crucial issues in all organization

sectors, including the maintenance sector. Unsustain or poor quality of maintenance
management execution will lead to negative impacts on the environment, safety, as
well as economic (Aoudia et al., 2008; Raouf, 2009). As a result, Liyanage and
Kumar (2003), Mather (2005), Alsyouf (2006), Parida and Chattopadhyay (2007),
Liyanage et al. (2009), and Parida (2012) have modified the BSC approach where
sustainability issues with respect to environmental and social factors have been
considered as well as economic factor in developing MPM frameworks.
Unfortunately, despite all relevant sustainability factors have been taken into
consideration, their frameworks were not comprehensive enough in terms of SMP
indicators.
The recent studies also revealed environmental and safety as emerging factors
in measuring SMP. Some of the previous researchers have initiated to consider
environmental or safety aspects in their framework such as Rouf (2004); Aoudia et
al. (2008); Kodali et al. (2009); Pintelon and Muchiri (2009); Raouf (2009); Chinese
and Ghirardo (2010); Ajukumar and Ghandi (2013); and Tang et al. (2015).
Unfortunately, it was observed that the three pillars of sustainability factors in a
balanced and integrated manner were discounted. Their frameworks were limited
182
and focused on specific factors such as economic, environmental or social rather than
integrating all relevant factors.
In order to address these shortcomings, this research developed a balanced

and integrated SMPM framework. A balanced framework needs to take
consideration financial and non-financial indicators, qualitative and quantitative
indicators. An integrated SMPM framework needs to embed all relevant
sustainability factors i.e. economic, environmental, and social due to these factors
have positive relationships with maintenance management function.
Previous studies have been conducted by Madu et al. (2006) and Pintelon et
al. (2006) proved that a proper maintenance management execution enables company
to enhance competitiveness. Similarly, Alsyouf (2009) argued that, proper
maintenance management practices have the positive contribution to the quality,
efficiency, and effectiveness of a company’s operations, and that in turn create
competitive advantages. Al-Ghanim (2003) revealed that an effective maintenance
management system can lead to energy saving, thus it will reduce the environmental
pollution as well as cost effectiveness. In addition, Holmgren (2005) stated that a
safety level of the plant can be improved by delivering a good maintenance
management practices.
Therefore, from a conceptual viewpoint, a proper MPM framework should

regard all three factors of sustainability in a balanced and integrated manner. It is
strongly believed that a balanced and integrated SMPM framework benefits company
in creating their unique competitive advantages (related to economic, environmental,
and social). These competitive advantages allow it to better compete within the
market that it operates in (Mather, 2005), so as the company can sustain their
business in a more sustainable manner.
183
ii. Alignment between corporate objectives and maintenance objectives
This study also identified the other main issue in developing SMPM
framework. It was found that the alignment between maintenance objectives at the
operational level and overall business objectives at the corporate level were
overlooked. Many researchers developed MPM frameworks mostly at the
operational level or the functional level only, without considering its effect on the
corporate level (Parida, 2006).
According to Parida (2006), the maintenance objectives need to be aligned to

overall business objectives in order to ensure the impact of maintenance function in
achieving these objectives. The clear alignment allows practitioners to translate
business strategies into maintenance daily activities and at the same time enables
maintenance workforces at the operational level to improve their value created
aligned to corporate objectives (Mather, 2005).
In order to response this issue, this study developed the SMPM framework in
a hierarchical manner by defining SMP indicators at the corporate, tactical, and
functional level. A hierarchical SMPM framework enables managers to see direct
and indirect impacts of maintenance performance against business objectives (such
as a source of profit). This framework can facilitate managers to make more efficient
and effective decisions, for instance allocation of capital to several machines based
on their contribution to business objectives.
6.3 The Findings in Validating the Preliminary Sustainable Maintenance

Performance Measurement Framework
Validation of conceptual SMPM framework through a survey based-

questionnaire was conducted in Malaysian automotive companies. The survey was
intended to prove that the proposed SMPM framework is relevant from a practical
point of view. This study applied the EFA and then the PLS-SEM to prove
reliability and validity the survey data, thus measurement quality can be fulfilled.
184
Upon the analysis of survey results, this study provided several important findings as
discussed follows.
i. Exploratory factor analysis
The EFA was applied in an attempt to obtain the significant indicators (Hair
et al., 2010). Thus, the highly correlated indicators were grouped together and
classed into the specific groups (perspectives). Moreover, PCA applied as EFA
extraction method since the data reduction is its main objective. PCA enables
reduction of the complexity of the interrelationships among indicators to a smaller
number of factors (Raykov and Marcoulides, 2008). Furthermore, PCA also
provides the first view of the natural data structure.
Liyanage and Kumar (2003) initially structured the perspectives of

maintenance performance with regard to three pillars of sustainability. Their model
defined three perspectives (capital, production, and cost) with respect to economic
factor, one perspective (environment) with respect to environmental factor, and only
one perspective (health and safety) with respect to social factor. However, there is
limited empirical evidence regarding this structure.
In this study, the EFA validated 30 indicators, 26 indicators, and 22 indicators

with respect to economic factor, environmental factor, and social factor, respectively.
Based on these results (see Table 4.5 and Table 4.6), no indicators were
recommended to be omitted with regard to economic factor and social factor. It
means that all indicators are relevant from a practical standpoint. Moreover, these
results also provided the empirical evidence that economic factor which consists of
three perspectives (cost effectiveness, quality, and productivity) and social factors
which consists of four perspectives (learning and growth, health and safety,
employee satisfaction, and stakeholders satisfaction) are a proper structure in
representing SMPM framework.
Regarding environmental factor, this study only grouped 26 indicators into

one perspective namely environment as suggested by Liyanage and Kumar (2003)
185
framework. However, EFA results suggested omitting 7 out of 26 indicators within

the environmental. Three out of those seven indicators were omitted due to
respondent’s responses that did not take original oil consumption, synthetic oils
consumption, and vegetable oils consumption as the significant issues to be
considered. Even though the respondents agreed on the importance of total volume
of lubricants consumption, they did not pay much attention to the lubricant source or
variant. This result provided further support for Despeisse et al. (2012) who argued
that environmental improvement with respect to resource saving can be done through
resource use reduction tactic (reducing the total volume of lubricant consumption)
before coming to a resource substitution tactic (the using of synthetic oils and
vegetable oils). Furthermore, the rest of 19 indicators were then recommended to be
divided into two perspectives namely resource efficiency perspective and pollution
and waste perspective. These results are aligned with Dias-Sardinha and Reijnders
(2005) and Orsato and Wells (2007). Therefore, this result confirmed the empirical
findings that in order to create competitive advantages in terms of environmental
point of view, the environmental factor should be organized into two main
perspectives namely resource efficiency perspective and pollution and waste
perspective. This is possibly due to the paradigm shift in Malaysian automotive
companies as stated by Fiksel (2009) that emphasis of an environmental issue has
shifted from the reduction of pollution and waste only to resource efficiency.
ii. Partial least square – structural equation modeling
In the next step, PLS-SEM was applied to validate the nine new perspectives
and their indicators based on EFA recommendation. This study applied PLS-SEM
since this method focused on more exploration or development of SMPM framework
and there is little previous knowledge on SMP measures (Hair et al., 2014). In
contrast, if the theory/ model well-established and research objective is theory
testing/ confirmation, then CB-SEM is a more appropriate method for validating the
theory/ model. Moreover, this framework consists of 13 constructs (SMP, three
factors as formative constructs and nine perspectives as reflective constructs) and 71
indicators. Upon this structural model, the framework can be considered as a
complex model where formative constructs are part of the structural model.
186
Therefore, PLS-SEM is a more appropriate approach to achieve the robust results

(Hair et al., 2011).
This study applied two model evaluation of PLS-SEM analysis, i.e.

measurement model evaluation and structural model evaluation. Upon the
measurement model evaluation, this study provided two important results. Firstly,
PLS-SEM results suggested that there were no indicators recommended to be
omitted. This means that all 71 SMP indicators are relevant to be implemented in the
real measurement process. Secondly, PLS-SEM results confirmed (EFA
recommendation) that nine perspectives of SMP namely cost effectiveness, quality,
productivity, resource efficiency, pollution and waste, learning and growth, health
and safety, employee satisfaction, and customer satisfaction, were sufficiently
different from each other. Herewith, this study has provided empirical evidence that
a proper SMP framework should consider the nine new perspectives in a balanced
and integrated manner.
Based on the results of structural model evaluation, it was found that the
linear relationships between SMP and its factors (economic, environmental, and
social) were significant. This finding provided empirical evidence that confirmed the
conceptual theory which mentioned sustainability is represented by three pillars i.e.
economic, environmental, and social (Liyanage et al., 2009). In consequence, a
balanced and integrated SMPM framework needs to take into account all three pillar
of sustainability rather than focus on a specific factor, so as the sustainable objectives
can be achieved.
In general, this study contributed to the theoretical literature by presenting the

ideal structure of SMPM framework. It consists of nine perspectives with respect to
three factors of sustainability (see Table 4.19). Moreover, this finding also benefits
the practitioners that need to embed sustainability issue within their maintenance
management execution. They can adopt and modify the structure of SMPM
framework based on their conditions (competitive advantages, regulation, limitations,
culture, etc.) so as it will benefit the company in order to become a more sustainable
company.
187
6.4 The Findings in Developing Measurement Guideline
In the following phase, this research developed a generic model of SMPM

guideline. It began with determining the importance weight of each measure by
applying AHP approach. The AHP approach computes the relative importance
weight of each measure and then ranks the critical measures.
These findings will assist potential users to identify which measures have
absolutely crucial effect in achieving overall company objectives, thus the best and
accurate decisions related to management assets such as allocation of capital can be
realized. This study also gave explanations as to why a measure is more critical than
other measures (see Section 5.4). Therefore, the automotive companies can use these
explanations as a guideline to determine the weight of each measure based on their
own needs and characteristics.
From the AHP results, it was found that Malaysian automotive companies
regarded environmental factor as the most important factor in evaluating SMP,
followed by economic factor and social factor, respectively. Contrary, Amrina
(2013) in her studies related to sustainable manufacturing found that Malaysian
automotive companies focused more on the economic factor, while the
environmental factor was considered as the least important factor in evaluating SMP.
The findings provided empirical evidence that environmental factor is becoming
more important in measuring sustainable performance for Malaysian automotive
companies. It is a positive trend that should be maintained and disseminated to all
stakeholders. Since, commitments of stakeholder and supplier of this industry to
consider sustainability issues (especially environmental issues) in their business
strategies are very crucial for sustainability around the world (González et al., 2008).
In the last stage, this research developed a measurement guideline for

measuring SMP. This guideline consists of three main procedures, i.e. rating score
of indicators, calculating the performance of factors, perspectives and indicators, and
classifying the performance level. This research then proposed the color coding for
each level of performance achievement and its signal. The excellent level is labeled
188
by blue color; good, fair, and poor are respectively labeled by green, yellow, and red.
The signaling system is used as a visual communication enables to share the
information quickly and accurately, so that the management can take good quality
decisions.
This research also developed a Microsoft Excel-based tool as an operational

tool. This tool enables company to portray their current performance level promptly
and accurately. The color coding used in this tool enables company to identify the
critical performance (red and yellow colors) quickly and take improvement solution
immediately. Hence, it offers a better management decision-making process.
Moreover, this tool was evaluated in two Malaysian automotive companies,

in an attempt to investigate the practicability of the tool. Upon the evaluation
process, it was indicated that respondents responded positively on this tool as it is a
useful (good and simple) and time-saving tool. The findings provided empirical
evidence that the developed tool was relevant from a practical standpoint. It is
believed that tool will lead to easy quantification of current SMP level.
6.5 Contributions of Research
This section presents the contributions emerging from this study. The
contributions are categorized into major and minor contributions as discussed from
here onwards.
i. Theoretical Definition
In the field of sustainability, the concept of SMM is relatively new. There

was no official definition of SMM provided by previous studies. Therefore, this
study proposed a formal definition of SMM that would be valuable to assist
academicians and practitioners in understanding the theoretical concept of SMM.
189
The SMM is defined as “all required processes for ensuring the acceptable
assets condition by eliminating negative environmental impact, prudent in using
resources, concern for the safety of employees and stakeholders, while at the same
time economically sound” (Sari et al., 2015).
ii. A set balanced and integrated of sustainable maintenance performance

measures for Malaysian automotive companies
The first main contribution of this study was a set balanced and integrated of
SMP measures that demonstrated the factors, perspectives, and indicators. It assists
practitioners to understand the important elements that need to be considered in
assessing the implementation of SMM for Malaysian automotive companies. This is
a general framework for Malaysian automotive companies, and then the companies
need to customize this framework based on their needs. Moreover, this study also
defined the operational definition of each indicator as presented in Table 4.20 to
Table 4.28. This definition will assist the academicians and practitioners to
understand the theoretical concept of SMP indicators. Moreover, it guides the
practitioners to formulate the indicator, so as the related data and person required for
calculating the indicator can be specified.
iii. A hierarchical structure of SMPM framework
The second main contribution of this research was the hierarchical structure
of a SMPM framework. A hierarchical manner assists practitioners to ensure clear
alignment between maintenance objectives and corporate objectives. It is strongly
believed that this framework will benefit the practitioners as it assists potential users
to know the important factors, perspectives, and indicators, which are relevant for
SMPM implementation in Malaysian automotive companies. According to Mather
(2005), every company needs to develop a specific SMPM system since it can be
influenced by competitive pressure, company limitations, global trends, regulation,
etc. Therefore, based on the proposed SMPM framework, every company can
identify specific SMP measures based on their own needs that are best suited to their
190
company financially and non-financially in order to meet their business objectives

(Mather, 2005).
iv. A set of critical measures in achieving overall company objectives
The third main contribution of this study was a set of critical SMP measures.
This study identified and then analyzed a set of critical measures. It benefits
potential users to identify which measures have absolutely crucial effect in achieving
business objectives.
v. A measurement guideline for measuring SMP
The fourth main contribution of this study was a measurement guideline.

This study established a systematic guideline for the implementation of SMPM
process. It allows the companies to calculate the current performance, and then
classify the performance level in supporting them to take appropriate actions for
improving the performance achievement.
vi. A software-based tool for building and using SMP
This research has also established a Microsoft Excel-based tool that assists
the potential user to build and use SMPM system for assessing the implementation of
SMM. It is believed that automotive companies will show interest to use this tool in
developing SMPM system and assessing its implementation.
CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
7.1 Conclusion of Research
This research has achieved its objectives and answered all the research
questions as summarized in Table 7.1. The conclusions of the research achievements
are as follows.
i. The first objective of this research was to develop a set balanced and integrated
of SMP measures for automotive companies. This study developed a SMPM
framework based on three factors of sustainability consisting of economic,
environmental, and social. 78 indicators were identified and categorized into
eight perspectives, i.e. cost effectiveness, quality, productivity, environmental,
learning and growth, health and safety, employee satisfaction, and customer
satisfaction. A survey was carried to confirm importance and applicability level
of preliminary SMPM framework in Malaysian automotive companies. The EFA
and then the PLS-SEM were established to prove reliability and validity the
survey data, thus measurement quality can be fulfilled. 19 indicators were then
recommended to be divided into two perspectives, namely resource efficiency
perspective which consists of 10 indicators and pollution and waste perspective
which consists of 9 indicators, respectively. PLS-SEM was applied to validate
the nine new perspectives based on EFA recommendation. 71 SMP indicators
were identified with respect to nine SMP perspectives, namely cost effectiveness,
quality, productivity, resource efficiency, pollution and waste, learning and
growth, health and safety, employee satisfaction, and customer satisfaction.
192
ii. The second objective of this research was to develop a SMPM framework that
allows the linking from corporate strategy to the operational level. The
achievements of the maintenance indicators to be measured using a proper
SMPM framework which ensures alignment between maintenance objectives and
corporate objectives. Therefore, this study proposed SMPM framework in a
hierarchical manner by defining performance indicators at each level, i.e. 14
indicators at the corporate level, 19 indicators at the tactical level, and 38
indicators at the functional, respectively.
iii. The third objective of this research was to identify the critical measures in
achieving the overall business objectives. For that purpose, AHP method was
applied to confirm the cause and effect relationship amongst the SMPM measures
(factors, perspectives, and indicators) through a hierarchical structure. In
addition, AHP through pairwise comparison was also assigned to identify the
critical indicators by defining the relative important weights of each measure.
The AHP results revealed that environmental factor is the most important factor
in evaluating SMP for Malaysian automotive companies, followed by economic
factor and social factor, respectively. Moreover, AHP also recognized the top
five important indicators in evaluating SMP, namely 1. total of lubricants
consumption indicator, 2. total of greenhouse gas emissions indicator, 3.
maintenance program achievement indicator, 4. stakeholder complaints indicator,
5a. training hours per employee indicator, 5b. employee complaints indicator.
iv. Finally and fourthly, this research developed a measurement guideline for
measuring SMP. This study also developed a Microsoft Excel-based tool and
template system which provides a useful and time saving tool for managers of
organizations that need to develop sustainable maintenance systems.
193
Table 7.1: Summary of research achievements

Analytical Result
Research
Research Question Methodology Method/
Objective
Tool
a. How to embed a. To develop a set - Constructed - EFA - Preliminary
sustainability balanced and preliminary - PLS- framework:
issues into a integrated of SMPM SEM 78
MPM SMP measures framework for indicators, 3
framework? (factors, automotive factors, 8
b. What are the perspectives, companies by perspectives
SMP measures and indicators) adapting and - Proposed
which can be for automotive modifying the framework:
applied for companies. relevance 71
automotive previous indicators, 3
companies? (literature) factors, 9
frameworks. perspectives
- Validated the (see Table
preliminary 4.19)
framework
through survey
methodology
- Proposed a
balanced and
integrated SMP
framework
c. How does b. To develop a - Proposed SMP AHP - Corporate
maintenance SMPM framework in a level: 14
management framework that hierarchical indicators
contribute to a allows the manner by - Tactical
company's linking for defining level: 19
competitive strategy to indicators at three indicators
strategies? operational or organization - Functional
functional level. levels (corporate, level: 38
tactical, and indicators
functional) (see Figure
5.2)
d. What measures c. To identify the - Determined the AHP The weight of
of SMP that will critical weight of factors, each measure
contribute measures in perspectives, and (factor,
significantly to achieving indicators through perspective, and
business overall pairwise indicator)
strategies? company comparison. (see Figure 5.3
objectives. and Section 5.4)
e. How the d. To develop a - Determined the Microsoft - Calculation
automotive measurement data scaling Excel process (see
companies system with a guideline and Figure 5.28)
measure the guideline of calculation - Performance
level of SMPM for process level and
implementation automotive - Proposed signaling
of sustainable companies. performance level system (See
maintenance? and signaling Table 5.4)
system - A Microsoft
- Developed a Excel-based
Microsoft Excel- tool
based tool
194
7.2 Limitations of Study
This study has some limitations despite the contributions in developing a

balanced and integrated SMPM framework and a guideline for implementing the
measurement process. These allow the opportunity for future studies.
i. Lack of the actual performance score (data) from the industry
In order to validate the SMPM process, this study used the published data
from the previous study (as explained in Section 5.7.1). Therefore, the results did
not portray the real condition of Malaysian automotive company.
ii. Lack of recommended target values of each indicator
In this research, the indicators were rated by applying a five-point Likert

scale in order to normalize physical measurement into the dimensionless score.
Another limitation of this research was the lack of a guideline for normalization
process. A guideline is thus required to guarantee a more accurate normalization
process by providing recommended target values for each indicator.
7.3 Recommendations for Future Research
There are several areas for further research related to SMPM systems and
they are as follows.
i. Extending the SMPM framework to incorporate different types of

industries
This study conducted a survey on Malaysian automotive companies listed in

MAI and PVAMD, in an attempt to validate the initial SMP measures derived from
the literature and then identify current implementation practices of maintenance
195
management systems. In future, the sample size could be enlarged in the wider
regional and global contexts. Therefore, future researchers can look at how specific
condition of different countries can influence the maintenance management
practices, such as culture, regulation, etc.
In addition, it is also possible to apply this SMPM system in other industrial

sectors, especially in high risk and capital intensive industries, such as oil and gas,
power plant, chemical, mining, etc. Researchers can try and understand how
maintenance management as a crucial support function contributes to company’s
competitive strategy across different types of industries.
ii. Getting the actual performance score (data) from the industry
Future research can validate the SMPM system through a case study. The
actual performance score can be used to evaluate the SMPM system. Therefore, the
actual condition of Malaysian automotive company can be described for further
action.
iii. Define recommended values of each indicators
Another area that could be studied is to develop a guideline for normalizing

physical measurement into the dimensionless score by defining recommended target
value for each indicator. It can assist potential users to convert real measurement
value into a scale ranging from 1 to 5 in a fairer and much more accurate manner.
iv. Establish a comprehensive online web based-software
Future research can extent the Microsoft Excel-based tool into a

comprehensive web based-software to make possible for users to make changes to
the related data via company intranet network system. Consequently, the
information can be shared at the entire company and sister company on a real time
condition. This tool would enhance efficiency storing and retrieving of information
for the maintenance management process.
REFERENCES
Abdullah, T. A., Wahab, D. A., and Lashlem, A. A. (2013). An overview use of

Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) in design for remanufacturing activities.
Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on the Analytic Hierarchy
Process/Analytic Network Process (ISAHP). 23 – 26 June. Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia.
Ahmed, S., Hj. Hassan, M., and Taha, Z. (2004). State of implementation of TPM in
SMIs: a survey study in Malaysia. Journal of Quality in Maintenance
Engineering, 10(2), 93-106.
Ahuja, I. P. S. (2009). Total productive maintenance. In: Ben-Daya, M., Duffuaa, S.
O., Raouf, A., Knezevic, J., and Ait-Kadi, D. (Eds.) Handbook of
Maintenance Managementand Engineering (pp. 417-459). London: Springer-
Verlag.
Ahuja, I. P. S., and Khamba, J. (2008). An evaluation of TPM initiatives in Indian
industry for enhanced manufacturing performance. International Journal of
Quality and Reliability Management, 25(2), 147-172.
Ahuja, I. P.S., and Kumar, P. (2009). A case study of total productive maintenance
implementation at precision tube mills. Journal of Quality in Maintenance
Engineering, 15(3), 241-258.
Ajukumar, V., and Gandhi, O. (2013). Evaluation of green maintenance initiatives in
design and development of mechanical systems using an integrated
approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 51, 34-46.
Alolah, T., Stewart, R. A., Panuwatwanich, K., and Mohamed, S. (2014).
Determining the causal relationships among balanced scorecard perspectives
on school safety performance: Case of Saudi Arabia. Accident Analysis and
Prevention, 68, 57-74.
Alsyouf, I. (2006). Measuring maintenance performance using a balanced scorecard
approach. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, 12(2), 133-149.
197
Alsyouf, I. (2007). The role of maintenance in improving companies’ productivity

and profitability. International Journal of Production Economics, 105(1), 70-
78.
Alsyouf, I. (2009). Maintenance practices in Swedish industries: Survey
results. International Journal of Production Economics, 121(1), 212-223.
Al‐Ghanim, A. (2003). A statistical approach linking energy management to
maintenance and production factors. Journal of Quality in Maintenance
Al-Najjar, B. (2012). Maintenance impact on company competitiveness and profit.
In: Lei, T. V. D., Herder, P., and Wijnia, Y. (Eds.) Asset Management: The
State of the Art in Europe from a Life Cycle Perspective (pp. 115-141).
London: Springer.
Amelia, L., Wahab, D., Che Haron, C., Muhamad, N., and Azhari, C. (2009).
Initiating automotive component reuse in Malaysia. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 17(17), 1572-1579.
Amponsah, C. T. (2013). An integrated approach for prioritizing projects for
implementation using AHP. Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium
on the Analytic Hierarchy Process/Analytic Network Process (ISAHP). 23 –
26 June. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Amrina, E. (2013). Sustainable Manufacturing Performance Evaluation Tool for
Automotive Companies. Doctor Philosophy, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia,
Skudai.
Amrina, E., and Yusof, S. M. (2012). Interpretive structural model of key
performance indicators for sustainable manufacturing evaluation in
automotive companies. 2012 IEEE International Conference on Industrial
Engineering and Engineering Management.
Andreichicova, O., and Andreichicov, A. (2013). About some features of AHP/ANP
applications. Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on the Analytic
Hierarchy Process/Analytic Network Process (ISAHP). 23 – 26 June. Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia.
Aoudia, M., Belmokhtar, O., and Zwingelstein, G. (2008). Economic impact of
maintenance management ineffectiveness of an oil and gas company. Journal
of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, 14(3), 237-261.
198
Association of Academies of Sciences in Asia (AASA) (2011). Towards A

Sustainable Asia: Energy. Berlin: Science Press Beijing and Springer-Verlag.
Ağan, Y., Kuzey, C., Acar, M. F., and Açıkgöz, A. (2016). The relationships
between corporate social responsibility, environmental supplier development,
and firm performance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 1872-1881.
Badurdeen, F., Shuaib, M., Metta, H., Stovall, C., and Jawahir, I.S. (2011). An
ontology-based approach to develop sustainable manufacturing metrics for
supply chain evaluation. Proceedings of NAMRI/SME, Vol. 39.
Baede, A. P. M., Linden, P. V. D., and Verbruggen, A. (2008). Annex II: glossary.
In: Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R. K., and Reisinger, A. (Eds.) Climate
Change 2007: Synthesis Report - Contribution of Working Groups I, II and
III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (pp. 76-89). Sweden: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change.
Ball, P. D., Evans, S., Levers, A., and Ellison, D. (2009). Zero carbon manufacturing
facility – towards integrating material, energy, and waste process
flows. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B:
Journal of Engineering Manufacture, 223(9), 1085-1096.
Bamber, C., Sharp, J., and Hides, M. (2002). The role of the maintenance
organisation in an integrated management system. Managerial Auditing
Journal, 17(1/2), 20-25.
Ben-Daya, M., Duffuaa, S. O., Raouf, A., Knezevic, J., and Ait-Kadi, D. (Eds.)
(2009). Handbook of Maintenance Managementand Engineering. London:
Springer-Verlag.
Bertolini, M., Bevilacqua, M., Braglia, M., and Frosolini, M. (2004). An analytical
method for maintenance outsourcing service selection. International Journal
of Quality and Reliability Management, 21(7), 772-788.
Bevilacqua, M., and Braglia, M. (2000). The analytic hierarchy process applied to
maintenance strategy selection. Reliability Engineering and System
Safety, 70(1), 71-83.
Biazzo, S., and Garengo P. (2012). Performance Measurement with the Balanced
Scorecard: A Practical Approach to Implementation within SMEs. Berlin:
Springer-Verlag.
199
Bornschlegl, M., Kreitlein, S., Bregulla, M., and Franke, J. (2015). A Method for
Forecasting the Running Costs of Manufacturing Technologies in
Automotive Production during the Early Planning Phase. Procedia CIRP, 26,
412-417.
Braglia, M., Carmignani, G., Frosolini, M., and Grassi, A. (2006). AHP‐based
evaluation of CMMS software. Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management, 17(5), 585-602.
Carr, G. M., and Rickwood, C. J. (2008). Water quality index for biodiversity
technical development document. Cambridge: Biodiversity Indicators
Partnership World Conservation Monitoring Center. 267.
Chelsom, J. V., Payne, A. C., and Reavill, L. R. P. (2005). Management for
Engineers, Scientists and Technologists. (2nd ed.). England: John Wiley &
Sons Ltd.
Chengcheng Fan, Carrell, J. D., and Hong-Chao Zhang. (2010). An investigation of
indicators for measuring sustainable manufacturing. Proceedings of the 2010
IEEE International Symposium on Sustainable Systems and Technology.
Chen, S., and Wu, W. (2010). A systematic procedure to evaluate an automobile
manufacturer–distributor partnership. European Journal of Operational
Research, 205(3), 687-698.
Cheng, Y., and Tsao, H. (2010). Rolling stock maintenance strategy selection spares
parts’ estimation, and replacements’ interval calculation. International
Journal of Production Economics, 128(1), 404-412.
doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2010.07.038
Cheung, A., Ip, W., and Lu, D. (2005). Expert system for aircraft maintenance
services industry. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, 11(4),
348-358.
Chinese, D., and Ghirardo, G. (2010). Maintenance management in Italian
manufacturing firms. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, 16(2),
156-180.
Cholasuke, C., Bhardwa, R., and Antony, J. (2004). The status of maintenance
management in UK manufacturing organisations: results from a pilot
survey. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, 10(1), 5-15.
200
Coakes, S. J. (2013). SPSS Version 20.0 for Windows: Analysis without Anguish.
John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.
Comoglio, C., and Botta, S. (2012). The use of indicators and the role of
environmental management systems for environmental performances
improvement: a survey on ISO 14001 certified companies in the automotive
sector. Journal of Cleaner Production, 20(1), 92-102.
Crespo Márquez, A., Moreu de León, P., Gómez Fernández, J., Parra Márquez, C.,
and López Campos, M. (2009). The maintenance management
framework. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, 15(2), 167-178.
Dagman, A., and Söderberg, R. (2012). Current state of the art on repair,
maintenance and serviceability in Swedish automotive industry – a virtual
product realization approach. Design for Innovative Value Towards a
Sustainable Society, 392-397.
Daily, B. F., and Huang, S. (2001). Achieving sustainability through attention to
human resource factors in environmental management. International Journal
of Operations and Production Management, 21(12), 1539-1552.
Daly, A., and Zannetti, P. (2007). An introduction to air pollution – definitions,
classifications, and history. In: Zannetti, P., Al-Ajmi, D., and Al-Rashied, S.
(Eds.) Ambient Air Pollution (pp. 1-14). The Arab School for Science and
Technology (ASST) and The EnviroComp Institute.
Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline (2009). HSE event injury illness
classification guide_HSE G 110. 229.
Dawes, J. (2008). Do data characteristics change according to the number of scale
points used?: an experiments using 5-point, 7-point, and 10-point scales.
International Journal of Market Research, 50(1), 61-77.
Dekker, R. (1996). Applications of maintenance optimization models: a review and
analysis. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 51(3), 229-240.
Delbari, S. A., Ng, S. I., Aziz, Y. A., and Ho, J. A. (2016). An investigation of key
competitiveness indicators and drivers of full-service airlines using Delphi
and AHP techniques. Journal of Air Transport Management, 52, 23-34.
Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (2012). Environmental
protection act 1990:part 2A - Contaminated land statutory guidance. UK:
HM Government.
201
Department of Environment Malaysia (2010). Malaysia environmental quality report

2010. Malaysia: Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Malaysia.
Department of Labour New Zealand (2002). Approved code of practice for the
management of noise in the workplace. Wellington: Occupational Safety and
Health Service.
Desirey, S. T. (2000). Positioning Maintenance as a Competitive Advantage.
Retrieved from the Plant Engineering website:
http://www.plantengineering.com/industry-news/top-stories/single-
article/positioning-maintenance-as-a-competitive-advantage/09c72be8e1.html
Despeisse, M., Ball, P. D., and Evans, S. (2012). Modelling and tactics for
sustainable manufacturing: an improvement methodology. In: Seliger, G.
(Ed.) Sustainable Manufacturing: Shaping Global Value Creation (pp. 9-16).
Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Despeisse, M., Oates, M. R., and Ball, P. D. (2013). Sustainable manufacturing
tactics and cross-functional factory modelling. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 42, 31-41.
Despeisse, M., Ball, P., Evans, S., and Levers, A. (2012). Industrial ecology at
factory level – a conceptual model. Journal of Cleaner Production, 31, 30-39.
Dias-Sardinha, I., and Reijnders, L. (2005). Evaluating environmental and social
performance of large Portuguese companies: a balanced scorecard
approach. Business Strategy and the Environment, 14(2), 73-91.
Dubey, R., Singh, T., Samar Ali, S., Venkatesh, V., and K. Gupta, O. (2014).
Exploring dimensions of firm competencies and their impact on
performance. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 21(6), 1003-1022.
Duffuaa, S. O., and Haroun, A. E. (2009). Maintenance control. In: Ben-Daya, M.,
Duffuaa, S. O., Raouf, A., Knezevic, J., and Ait-Kadi, D. (Eds.) Handbook of
Verlag.
Fiksel, J. (2009). Design for Environment: A Guide to Sustainable Product
Development. (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Forza, C. (2002). Survey research in operations management: a process‐based
perspective. International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, 22(2), 152-194.
202
Franceschini, F., Galetto, M., and Maisano, D. (2007). Management by

Measurement: Designing Key Indicators and Performance Measurement
Systems. Berlin: Springer Berlin.
Gaik Chin, H., and Zameri Mat Saman, M. (2004). Proposed analysis of performance
measurement for a production system. Business Process Management
Journal, 10(5), 570-583.
Garg, A., and Deshmukh, S. (2006). Maintenance management: literature review and
directions. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, 12(3), 205-238.
Gebauer, H., Pützr, F., Fischer, T., Wang, C., and Lin, J. (2008). Exploring
maintenance strategies in Chinese product manufacturing
companies. Management Research News, 31(12), 941-950.
Gernuks, M. (2011). Resource Efficiency – what are the Objectives? Glocalized
Solutions for Sustainability in Manufacturing, 63-66.
Giri, S., and Nejadhashemi, A. P. (2014). Application of analytical hierarchy process
for effective selection of agricultural best management practices. Journal of
Environmental Management, 132, 165-177.
Gomes, C. F., Yasin, M. M., and Lisboa, J. V. (2004). An examination of
manufacturing organizations' performance evaluation. International Journal
of Operations and Production Management, 24(5), 488-513.
Gomes, C. F., Yasin, M. M., and Lisboa, J. V. (2006). Performance measurement
practices in manufacturing firms: an empirical investigation. Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management, 17(2), 144-167.
Gomes, C. F., Yasin, M. M., and Lisboa, J. V. (2011). Performance measurement
practices in manufacturing firms revisited. International Journal of
Operations and Production Management, 31(1), 5-30.
González, P., Sarkis, J., and Adenso‐Díaz, B. (2008). Environmental management
system certification and its influence on corporate practices. International
Journal of Operations and Production Management, 28(11), 1021-1041.
Gregory, R. (1996). Waste management in Malaysia: issues and initiatives related to
conservation of biodiversity and critical habitats. Malaysia: World Wide
Fund for Nature (WWF) Malaysia.
Grewal, S. (2011). Manufacturing Process Design and Costing: An Integrated
Approach. London: Springer-Verlag.
203
Gupta, A., Jayal, A. D., Chimienti, M., and Jawahir, I. S. (2011). A Total Life-Cycle
Approach towards Developing Product Metrics for Sustainable
Manufacturing. Glocalized Solutions for Sustainability in Manufacturing,
240-245.
Habidin, N. F., and Yusof, S. M. (2013). Critical success factors of Lean Six Sigma
for the Malaysian automotive industry. International Journal of Lean Six
Sigma, 4(1), 60-82.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., and Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate Data
Analysis. (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C.M., and Sarstedt, M. (2014). A Primer on
Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). California:
SAGE Publications, Inc.
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., and Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a Silver
Bullet. The Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139-152.
HajShirmohammadi, A., and Wedley, W. C. (2004). Maintenance management – an
AHP application for centralization/decentralization. Journal of Quality in
Maintenance Engineering, 10(1), 16-25.
Hale, A., Heming, B., Smit, K., Rodenburg, F., and Van Leeuwen, N. (1998).
Evaluating safety in the management of maintenance activities in the
chemical process industry. Safety Science, 28(1), 21-44.
Hamimi Abdul Razak, I., Kamaruddin, S., and Abdul Azid, I. (2012). Workforce
competency model (WFCM). International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management, 61(1), 24-45.
Haroun, A. E., and Duffuaa, S. O. (2009). Maintenance organization. In: Ben-Daya,
M., Duffuaa, S. O., Raouf, A., Knezevic, J., and Ait-Kadi, D. (Eds.)
Handbook of Maintenance Managementand Engineering (pp. 3-15). London:
Springer-Verlag.
Health and Safety Executive (2002). Lighting at Work. Health and Safety Executive.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., and Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use of partial least
squares path modeling in international marketing. Advances in International
Marketing, 20, 277–319.
204
Herzog, N. V., Polajnar, A., and Tonchia, S. (2007). Development and validation of
business process reengineering (BPR) variables: a survey research in
Slovenian companies. International Journal of Production Research, 45(24),
5811-5834.
Ho, R. (2014). Handbook of Univariate and Multivariate Data Analysis with IBM
SPSS. (2nd ed.). Taylor and Francis.
Holmgren, M. (2005). Maintenance‐related losses at the Swedish Rail. Journal of
Quality in Maintenance Engineering, 11(1), 5-18.
Idhammar, C. (2016, October 7). Safety and Reactive Maintenance. Retrieved from
the IDCON website: http://www.idcon.com/resource-library/articles/safety-
and-maintenance/546-safety-reactive-maintenance.html
Ingalls, P. (2005). Just what is World Class Maintenance?. Retrieved from the
Maintenance Technology website:
http://www.maintenancetechnology.com/2005/02/just-what-is-world-class-
maintenance/
Jasiulewicz-Kaczmarek, M., and Drozyner, P. (2011). Maintenance Management
Initiatives Towards Achieving Sustainable Development. Information
Technologies in Environmental Engineering, 707-721.
Jayal, A., Badurdeen, F., Dillon, O., and Jawahir, I. (2010). Sustainable
manufacturing: Modeling and optimization challenges at the product, process
and system levels. CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and
Technology, 2(3), 144-152.
Jawahir, I. S. (2016, October 7). Sustainable Manufacturing: The Driving Force for
Innovative Products, Processes and Systems for Next Generation
Manufacturing. Retrieved from The National Conference of State
Legislatures (NCSL) website:
http://www.ncsl.org/Portals/1/Documents/employ/Jawahir-Manuf.pdf
Jonsson, P. (1997). The status of maintenance management in Swedish
manufacturing firms. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, 3(4),
233-258.
Joung, C. B., Carrell, J., Sarkar, P., and Feng, S. C. (2012). Categorization of
indicators for sustainable manufacturing. Ecological Indicators, 24, 148-157.
205
Jusoh, R., Nasir Ibrahim, D., and Zainuddin, Y. (2008). The performance
consequence of multiple performance measures usage. International Journal
of Productivity and Performance Management, 57(2), 119+-136.
Kans, M. (2008). An approach for determining the requirements of computerised
maintenance management systems. Computers in Industry, 59(1), 32-40.
Kans, M., and Ingwald, A. (2008). Common database for cost-effective improvement
of maintenance performance. International Journal of Production
Economics, 113(2), 734-747.
Kaur, M., Singh, K., and Singh Ahuja, I. (2012). An evaluation of the synergic
implementation of TQM and TPM paradigms on business
performance. International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, 62(1), 66-84.
Keijzers, G. (2002). The transition to the sustainable enterprise. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 10(4), 349-359.
Khalili Shavarini, S., Salimian, H., Nazemi, J., and Alborzi, M. (2013). Operations
strategy and business strategy alignment model (case of Iranian
industries). International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, 33(9), 1108-1130.
Kline, P. (2013). The New Psychometrics: Science, Psychology, and Measurement.
New York: Routledge.
Kodali, R., Prasad Mishra, R., and Anand, G. (2009). Justification of world‐class
maintenance systems using analytic hierarchy constant sum method. Journal
Kutucuoglu, K., Hamali, J., Irani, Z., and Sharp, J. (2001). A framework for
managing maintenance using performance measurement
systems. International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, 21(1/2), 173-195.
Lee, J., Wang, H., Cincinnati, Ni, J., Djurdjanovic, D., and Arbor, A. (2007).
Intelligent maintenance systems. In: Seliger, G. (Ed.) Sustainability in
Manufacturing: Recovery of Resources in Product and Material Cycles (pp.
354-365). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
206
Lei, T. V. D. (2012). Towards a research agenda for strategic engineering asset

management. In: Lei, T. V. D., Herder, P., and Wijnia, Y. (Eds.) Asset
Management: The State of the Art in Europe from a Life Cycle Perspective
(pp. 169-172). London: Springer.
Lettice, F., Wyatt, C., and Evans, S. (2010). Buyer–supplier partnerships during
product design and development in the global automotive sector: Who
invests, in what and when? International Journal of Production
Economics, 127(2), 309-319.
Lind, S., and Nenonen, S. (2008). Occupational risks in industrial
maintenance. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, 14(2), 194-
204.
Liu, C. L. (2010). An Analysis of Third-Party Logistics Performance and Service
Provision in the UK and Taiwan. Doctor Philosophy, University of
Liverpool.
Liyanage, J. P. (2007). Operations and maintenance performance in production and
manufacturing assets. Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management, 18(3), 304-314.
Liyanage, J. P., and Badurdeen, F. (2009). Strategies for integrating maintenance for
sustainable manufacturing. Proceedings of the 4th World Congress on
Engineering Asset Management. 28 – 30 September. Athens, Greece.
Liyanage, J. P., Badurdeen, F., and Ratnayake, R. M. C. (2009). Industrial asset
maintenance and sustainability performance: economical, environmental, and
societal implications. In: Ben-Daya, M., Duffuaa, S. O., Raouf, A.,
Knezevic, J., and Ait-Kadi, D. (Eds.) Handbook of Maintenance
Managementand Engineering (pp. 665-693). London: Springer-Verlag.
Liyanage, J. P., and Kumar, U. (2003). Towards a value‐based view on operations
and maintenance performance management. Journal of Quality in
Länsiluoto, A., and Järvenpää, M. (2008). Environmental and performance
management forces. Qualitative Research in Accounting and
Management, 5(3), 184-206.
MAA (Malaysian Automotive Association) (2016). Market Review for 2015 and
Outlook for 2016. Kuala Lumpur: MAA.
207
Madu, C. N. (2000). Competing through maintenance strategies. International

Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 17(9), 937-949.
Maestrini, V., Luzzini, D., Maccarrone, P., and Caniato, F. (2017). Supply chain
performance measurement systems: A systematic review and research
agenda. International Journal of Production Economics, 183, 299-315.
Magrini, A., and Lins, L. D. (2007). Integration between environmental management
and strategic planning in the oil and gas sector. Energy Policy, 35(10), 4869-
4878.
Maletič, D., Maletič, M., and Gomišček, B. (2012). The relationship between
continuous improvement and maintenance performance. Journal of Quality in
Marjani, M. E., Mojahed, M., and Marjani, S. (2013). Usage of group AHP approach
in sport shoes selection. Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on
the Analytic Hierarchy Process/Analytic Network Process (ISAHP). 23 – 26
June. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Mather, D. (2005). The Maintenance Scorecard: Creating Strategic Advantage. New
York: Industrial Press.
Mirghani, M. A. (2009). Guidelines for budgeting and costing planned maintenance
services. In: Ben-Daya, M., Duffuaa, S. O., Raouf, A., Knezevic, J., and Ait-
Kadi, D. (Eds.) Handbook of Maintenance Managementand Engineering (pp.
115-132). London: Springer-Verlag.
Mishra, R. P., Kodali, R. B., Gupta, G., and Mundra, N. (2015). Development of a
Framework for Implementation of World-class Maintenance Systems Using
Interpretive Structural Modeling Approach. Procedia CIRP, 26, 424-429.
MITI (Ministry of International Trade and Industry) (2014). National Automotive
Policy (NAP) 2014. Kuala Lumpur: MITI.
Muchiri, P., Pintelon, L., Gelders, L., and Martin, H. (2011). Development of
maintenance function performance measurement framework and
indicators. International Journal of Production Economics, 131(1), 295-302.
Murthy, D., Atrens, A., and Eccleston, J. (2002). Strategic maintenance
management. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, 8(4), 287-305.
208
Nachiappan, R., and Anantharaman, N. (2006). Evaluation of overall line

effectiveness (OLE) in a continuous product line manufacturing
system. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 17(7), 987-
1008.
Narayan, V. (2012). Business performance and maintenance. Journal of Quality in
National SME Development Council (2005). Definitions for small and medium
enterprises in Malaysia. Malaysia: Bank Negara Malaysia.
Nezami, F. G., and Yildirim, M. B. (2013). A sustainability approach for selecting
maintenance strategy. International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, 6(4),
332-343.
Nunes, B., and Bennett, D. (2010). Green operations initiatives in the automotive
industry: An environmental reports analysis and benchmarking
study. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 17(3), 396-420.
Oddershede, A., Farías, F., Donoso, J., and Jarufe, P. (2013). AHP model for primary
school teaching and learning ICT appraisal: user perception. Proceedings of
the 12th International Symposium on the Analytic Hierarchy Process/Analytic
Network Process (ISAHP). 23 – 26 June. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Olugu, E. U., Wong, K. Y., and Shaharoun, A. M. (2011). Development of key
performance measures for the automobile green supply chain. Resources,
Conservation and Recycling, 55(6), 567-579.
Orsato, R., and Wells, P. (2007). The Automobile Industry and
Sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15(11-12), 989-993.
O’Brien, C. (2012). Keynote Lecture 1: Adapting and prospering in the new world
order. Proceedings of the 13th Asia Pacific Industrial Engineering and
Management Systems Conference (APIEMS). 2 – 5 December. Phuket,
Thailand: Asian Institute of Technology, x.
O’Rourke, Norm, and Hatcher, L. (2013). A Step-by-Step Approach to Using SAS®
for Factor Analysis and Structural Equation Modeling. (2nd ed.). Cary, NC:
SAS Institute Inc.
Pariazar, M., Shahrabi, J., Zaeri, M., and Parhizi, S. (2008). A Combined Approach
for Maintenance Strategy Selection. Journal of Applied Sciences, 8(23),
4321-4329.
209
Parida, A. (2006). Development of a Multi-criteria Hierarchical Framework for

Maintenance Performance Measurement: Concepts, Issues and Challenges.
Doctor Philosophy, Lulea University of Technology, Lulea.
Parida, A. (2007). Study and analysis of maintenance performance indicators (MPIs)
for LKAB. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, 13(4), 325-337.
Parida, A. (2012). Asset performance assessment. In: Lei, T. V. D., Herder, P., and
Wijnia, Y. (Eds.) Asset Management: The State of the Art in Europe from a
Life Cycle Perspective (pp. 101-113). London: Springer.
Parida, A., and Chattopadhyay, G. (2007). Development of a multi‐criteria
hierarchical framework for maintenance performance measurement
(MPM). Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, 13(3), 241-258.
Parida, A., and Kumar, U. (2006). Maintenance performance measurement (MPM):
issues and challenges. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, 12(3),
239-251.
Parida, A., and Kumar, U. (2009). Maintenance productivity and performance
measurement. In: Ben-Daya, M., Duffuaa, S. O., Raouf, A., Knezevic, J., and
Ait-Kadi, D. (Eds.) Handbook of Maintenance Managementand Engineering
(pp. 17-41). London: Springer-Verlag.
Parida, A., Kumar, U., Galar, D., and Stenström, C. (2015). Performance
measurement and management for maintenance: a literature review. Journal
Parthiban, P., Zubar, H. A., and Garge, C. P. (2012). A Multi Criteria Decision
Making Approach for Suppliers Selection. Procedia Engineering, 38, 2312-
2328.
Piechnicki, A. S., Sola, A. V., and Trojan, F. (2015). Decision-making towards
achieving world-class total productive maintenance. International Journal of
Operations and Production Management, 35(12), 1594-1621.
Pintelon, L., and Muchiri P. N.(2009). Safety and maintenance. In: Ben-Daya, M.,
Duffuaa, S. O., Raouf, A., Knezevic, J., and Ait-Kadi, D. (Eds.) Handbook of
Verlag.
210
Pintelon, L., Pinjala, S. K., and Vereecke, A. (2006). Evaluating the effectiveness of
maintenance strategies. Journal of Quality in Maintenance
Proton (2017, April 20). History. Retrieved from the Proton website:
http://corporate.proton.com/en/About/Brand/History.aspx
Putri, N. T., Yusof, S. M., and Irianto, D. (2014). The Delphi hierarchy process-
based study of quality engineering in Malaysia and Indonesia automotive
companies. The TQM Journal, 26(6), 566-576.
Raja Mamat, T. N., Mat Saman, M. Z., Sharif, S., and Simic, V. (2016). Key success
factors in establishing end-of-life vehicle management system: A primer for
Malaysia. Journal of Cleaner Production, 135, 1289-1297.
Ram, J., Wu, M., and Tagg, R. (2014). Competitive advantage from ERP projects:
Examining the role of key implementation drivers. International Journal of
Project Management, 32(4), 663-675.
Raouf, A. (2004). Productivity enhancement using safety and maintenance
integration. Kybernetes, 33(7), 1116-1126.
Raouf, A. (2009). Maintenance quality and environmental performance
improvement: an integrated approach. In: Ben-Daya, M., Duffuaa, S. O.,
Raouf, A., Knezevic, J., and Ait-Kadi, D. (Eds.) Handbook of Maintenance
Managementand Engineering (pp. 649-664). London: Springer-Verlag.
Ratnayake, R. M. C. (2013). Sustainable performance of industrial assets: the role of
PAS 55-1and2 and human factors. International Journal of Sustainable
Ratnayake, R. M. C., and Markeset, T. (2010). Technical integrity management:
measuring HSE awareness using AHP in selecting a maintenance
strategy. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, 16(1), 44-63.
Ratnayake, R. M. C., and Markeset, T. (2012). Asset integrity management for
sustainable industrial operations: measuring the performance. International
Journal of Sustainable Engineering, 5(2), 145-158.
Raykov, T., and Marcoulides, G. A. (2008). An Introduction to Applied Multivariate
Analysis. New York: Taylor & Francis Group.
Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., and Straub, D. W. (2012). A critical look at the use of
PLS-SEM in MIS Quarterly. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), iii-xiv.
211
Reinartz, W., Haenlein, M., and Henseler, J. (2009). An empirical comparison of the
efficacy of covariance-based and variance-based SEM. International Journal
of Research in Marketing, 26(4), 332-344.
Rosli, M. (2006). The automobile industry and performance of Malaysian auto
production. Journal of Economic Cooperation, 27(1), 89-114.
Rotab Khan, M., and Darrab, I. A. (2010). Development of analytical relation
between maintenance, quality and productivity. Journal of Quality in
Rouse, P. and Putterill, L. (2003). An integral framework for performance
measurement. Management decision, 41(8), 791-805.
Saaty, T. L. (2008). The analytic hierarchy and analytic network measurement
processes: applications to decisions under risk. European Journal of Pure and
Applied Mathematics, 1(1), 122-196.
Saaty, T. L. (2013). Better world through better decision making. Proceedings of the
12th International Symposium on the Analytic Hierarchy Process/Analytic
Network Process (ISAHP). 23 – 26 June. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Saaty, T. L., and Sodenkamp, M. (2010). The analytic hierarchy and analytic
network measurement processes: the measurement of intangibles - decision
making under benefits, opportunities, costs and risks. In: Zopounidis, C.,
Pardalos, P. M., and Hearn, D. W. (Eds.) Applied Optimization: Handbook of
Multicriteria Analysis (pp. 91-166). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
Salleh, N. A., Kasolang, S., and Jaffar, A. (2012a). Green Lean Total Quality
Information Management in Malaysian Automotive Companies. Procedia
Engineering, 41, 1708-1713.
Salleh, N. A., Kasolang, S., and Jaafar, A. (2012b). Review study of developing an
integrated TQM with LM framework model in Malaysian automotive
industry. The TQM Journal, 24(5), 399-417.
Salonen, A., and Deleryd, M. (2011). Cost of poor maintenance. Journal of Quality
in Maintenance Engineering, 17(1), 63-73.
Sari, E., Shaharoun, A. M., Ma’aram, A., and Yazid, A. M. (2015). Sustainable
Maintenance Performance Measures: A Pilot Survey in Malaysian
Automotive Companies. Procedia CIRP, 26, 443-448.
212
Sekaran, U. (2003). Research Methods for Business: A Skill-Building Approach. (4th

ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Sezen, B., and Çankaya, S. Y. (2013). Effects of Green Manufacturing and Eco-
innovation on Sustainability Performance. Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 99, 154-163.
Sharma, A., Yadava, G., and Deshmukh, S. (2011). A literature review and future
perspectives on maintenance optimization. Journal of Quality in Maintenance
Sharma, R. K., Kumar, D., and Kumar, P. (2005). FLM to select suitable
maintenance strategy in process industries using MISO model. Journal of
Simões, J., Gomes, C., and Yasin, M. (2011). A literature review of maintenance
performance measurement. Journal of Quality in Maintenance
Engineering, 17(2), 116-137.
Smith-Perera, A., and Figarella, X. (2013). Prioritization of strategic guidelines as
part of the strategic plan 2010-2014 for a Venezuelan university using AHP.
Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on the Analytic Hierarchy
Process/Analytic Network Process (ISAHP). 23 – 26 June. Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia.
SMRP (The Society for Maintenance and Reliability Professionals). (2016, October
18). Metrics. Retrieved from the SMRP website:
http://library.smrp.org/ind_metrics
Srivastava, G., and Kumar, P. (2013). Water quality index with missing
parameters. International Journal of Research in Engineering and
Technology, 02(04), 609-614.
Swanson, L. (2001). Linking maintenance strategies to performance. International
Journal of Production Economics, 70(3), 237-244.
Sénéchal, O. (2017). Research directions for integrating the triple bottom line in
maintenance dashboards. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142, 331-342.
Tabachnick, B. G., and Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using Multivariate Statistics. (5th ed.).
New York: Pearson Education, Inc.
213
Tang, Y., Zou, Z., Jing, J., Zhang, Z., and Xie, C. (2015). A framework for making
maintenance decisions for oil and gas drilling and production
equipment. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 26, 1050-1058.
The US Department of Commerce. (2016, December 2). Sustainable Manufacturing
Initiative (SMI): A True Public-Private Dialogue. Retrieved from the OECD
website: https://www.oecd.org/sti/ind/45010349.pdf
Total. (2016, October 18). Biodegradable Lubricants for Industry. Retrieved from
the Total website: http://www.lubricants.total.com/industry/business-
sectors/biodegradable lubricants.html
Tsang, A. H. (1998). A strategic approach to managing maintenance
performance. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, 4(2), 87-94.
Tsang, A. H., Jardine, A. K., and Kolodny, H. (1999). Measuring maintenance
performance: a holistic approach. International Journal of Operations and
Production Management, 19(7), 691-715.
Tseng, M., Divinagracia, L., and Divinagracia, R. (2009). Evaluating firm’s
sustainable production indicators in uncertainty. Computers and Industrial
Engineering, 57(4), 1393-1403.
Tätilä, J., Helkiö, P., and Holmström, J. (2014). Exploring the performance effects of
performance measurement system use in maintenance process. Journal of
Uysal, F., and Tosun, Ö. (2012). Fuzzy TOPSIS‐based computerized maintenance
management system selection. Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management, 23(2), 212-228.
Wagner, M. (2007). Integration of Environmental Management with Other
Managerial Functions of the Firm. Long Range Planning, 40(6), 611-628.
Wang, H. (2002). A survey of maintenance policies of deteriorating
systems. European Journal of Operational Research, 139(3), 469-489.
Wang, L., Chu, J., and Wu, J. (2007). Selection of optimum maintenance strategies
based on a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of
Production Economics, 107(1), 151-163.
Warhurst, A. (2002). Sustainability indicators and sustainability performance
management. Mining, Minerals and Sustainable Development.
214
Wetzels, M., Odekerken-Schröder, G., and Oppen, C. V. (2009). Using PLS path
modeling for assessing hierarchical construct models: guidelines and
empirical illustration. MIS Quarterly, 33(1), 177-195.
Wilden, R., Gudergan, S. P., Nielsen, B. B., and Lings, I. (2013). Dynamic
Capabilities and Performance: Strategy, Structure and Environment. Long
Range Planning, 46(1-2), 72-96.
WorkSafe Victoria (2005). Guide for assessing and fixing noise problems at work.
Melbourne: Victorian WorkCover Authority.
World Commission on Environment and Development (1987). Our Common Future.
Oslo: World Commission on Environment and Development.
Yang, C., Chuang, S., and Huang, R. (2009). Manufacturing evaluation system based
on AHP/ANP approach for wafer fabricating industry. Expert Systems with
Applications, 36(8), 11369-11377.
Yuan, C., Zhai, Q., and Dornfeld, D. (2012). A three dimensional system approach
for environmentally sustainable manufacturing. CIRP Annals -
Manufacturing Technology, 61(1), 39-42.
Yusop, N., Wahab, D., and Saibani, N. (2016). Realising the automotive
remanufacturing roadmap in Malaysia: challenges and the way
forward. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 1910-1919.
Zailani, S., Govindan, K., Iranmanesh, M., Shaharudin, M. R., and Sia Chong, Y.
(2015). Green innovation adoption in automotive supply chain: the Malaysian
case. Journal of Cleaner Production, 108, 1115-1122.
Zaim, S., Turkyılmaz, A., Acar, M. F., Al‐Turki, U., and Demirel, O. F. (2012).
Maintenance strategy selection using AHP and ANP algorithms: a case
study. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, 18(1), 16-29.
Zakuan, N. M. (2009). Structural Analysis of Total Quality Management,
ISO/TS16949 and Organizational Performance in Malaysian and Thailand
Automotive Industry. Doctor Philosophy, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia,
Skudai.
Zhang, X., Lu, T., Shuaib, M., Rotella, G., Huang, A., Feng, S. C., … Jawahir, I. S.
(2012). A Metrics-Based Methodology for Establishing Product
Sustainability Index (ProdSI) for Manufactured Products. Leveraging
Technology for a Sustainable World, 435-441.
215
Zuashkiani, A., Rahmandad, H., and Jardine, A. K. (2011). Mapping the dynamics of
overall equipment effectiveness to enhance asset management
practices. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, 17(1), 74-92.
216
APPENDIX A1
List of experts
I. International Experts
1. Prof. Uday Kumar

Department of Civil, Environmental and Natural Resources
Engineering,
Division of Operation, Maintenance and Acoustics,
Lulea University of Technology,
Lulea, Sweden.
2. Assoc. Prof. Aditya Parida

Engineering,
Lulea, Sweden.
3. Assoc. Prof. Ramin Karim

Engineering,
Lulea, Sweden.
4. Prof. Dr. I.S. Jawahir

Institute for Sustainable Manufacturing,
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
College of Engineering,
University of Kentucky,
Lexington, USA.
5. Prof. Jayantha P. Liyanage

Centre for Industrial Asset Management,
Faculty of Science & Technology,
University of Stavanger,
Stavanger, Norway.
217
II. National Experts
1. Zamri Isa, BSc, MBA.

Engineering Maintenance Manager,
Delloyd Industries (M) Sdn Bhd, Malaysia.
2. Prof. Ir. Dr. Hj. Abdul Rahman Omar

Faculty of Mechanical Engineering,
Universiti Teknologi Mara, Shah Alam.
3. Prof. Dr. Ir. Erry Yulian Triblas Adesta

Kulliyyah of Engineering,
International Islamic University Malaysia, Gombak.
4. Prof. Dr. Che Hassan Che Haron

Depatment of Mechanical and Material Engineering,
Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment,
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi.
5. Assoc. Prof. Dr. Hj. Baba Md. Deros

Depatment of Mechanical and Material Engineering,
Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment,
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi.
6. Prof. Dr. Sha’ri Mohd. Yusof

UTM Razak School of Engineering and Advanced Technology,
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur.
7. Prof. Dr. Noordin Mohd. Yusof

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai.
8. Prof. Dr. Safian Sharif

9. Assoc. Prof. Dr. Muhamad Zameri Mat Saman

10. Assoc. Prof. Dr. Wong Kuan Yew

218
APPENDIX A2
Example letter to expert
Prof. Jayantha P. Liyanage 21th November 2013

Center for Industrial Asset Management,
University of Stavanger,
Stavanger, Norway.
Dear Prof. Jayantha P. Liyanage,
Request for Questionnaire Evaluation by Expert
I am Emelia Sari, a PhD student at the Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Universiti Teknologi
Malaysia (UTM), Skudai, Johor – Malaysia. My PhD research focuses on sustainable maintenance in
automotive industries where its objective is to develop sustainable maintenance performance
measurement systems for automotive companies.
With respect to your expertise and past experience, I would be honored if you could participate as an
evaluator of the questionnaire that I have developed for this project. In order to ensure the research
success, it is important to design a reliable and effective questionnaire as its role to collect the
supporting data so that the research objectives can be achieved. I hereby request your kind help to give
your valuable comments on the questionnaire.
Attached is the softcopy of questionnaire for you to comment. Furthermore, an evaluation form is also
attached when it is necessary to write additional or deeper input. I would be very grateful if you can
return the questionnaire and evaluation form before 5th December 2013.
Thank you in advance for your time and participation.
Yours sincerely,
Emelia Sari
Researcher
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia,
81310 UTM Skudai, Johor
Malaysia
HP: +601116318129
E-mail: [email protected]
Corresponding Address:
Professor Dr. Awaluddin Bin Dr. Azanizawati Bt. Ma’aram
Mohamed Shaharoun Project Supervisor
Project Supervisor Faculty of Mechanical Engineering,
UTM Razak School of Engineering and Universiti Teknologi Malaysia,
Advanced Technology, 81310 UTM Skudai, Johor
Jalan Semarak, Malaysia
54100 Kuala Lumpur - Malaysia HP: +60197575109
HP: +60197144115 E-mail: [email protected]
219
APPENDIX A3
Evaluation form of expert
EVALUATION FORM QUESTIONNAIRE

SURVEY ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SUSTAINABLE MAINTENANCE
PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT SYSTEMS FOR AUTOMOTIVE COMPANIES
Instruction: Kindly review the attached questionnaire and write as many comments as possible on
this form
1. Question content (e.g. Does the question asked provide data that will meet the study objectives?
Are the questions satisfactory in terms of scope and coverage? Can the respondent adequately
answer the question?)
2. Question wording (e.g. Does the question use words that can lead to confusion? Is the question
worded from the respondent’s rather than the researcher’s perspective? Does the question contain
words that can lead the respondent to answer in more than one way?)
3. Respondent interest (e.g. Can the question make the potential respondent quickly lose interest?)
4. Question sequence (e.g. Are the questions arranged in the best possible way i.e. starting with
stimulating question and placing the most sensitive question last?)
5. Continuity and flow (e.g. Can the questions be read effortlessly and arranged to flow from one
to another?)
6. Length and time (e.g. Is the questionnaire too long and time consuming to answer?)
7. Others
220
APPENDIX A4
Survey questionnaire
SURVEY ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SUSTAINABLE MAINTENANCE PERFORMANCE

MEASUREMENT SYSTEMS FOR AUTOMOTIVE COMPANIES
Introduction:
This survey is part of a study on the development of sustainable maintenance performance measurement systems for
automotive companies. The objectives of this survey are to investigate the extent of sustainable maintenance
implementation and the sustainable maintenance performance measures which are used in automotive industrial
practice. In the end, the survey results will provide an input to propose the appropriate measures in order to assess
sustainable maintenance performance in automotive companies. The results will be used only for research purposes
and no attempt will be made to identify any individual or organizations in any publications.
Instruction:
This questionnaire consists of THREE (3) main sections. Please read the questions carefully before answering them.
SECTION 1: CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONDENT
The first section is about general information of respondent. Please fill-in the required information.
1. Your position in the company : ………………………………………………………………….

2. Your experience in the automotive industry : ……………….………..Years
SECTION 2: BACKGROUND OF COMPANY
2.1 General Information
This section is intended for getting the information about your organization in general. Please tick (√) the appropriate
box.
1. What is the approximate number of full time employees in your company?

 Less than 51  51 to 150  More than 150 (Please specify) …………….
2. What is the approximate number of full time maintenance employees in your company?
 Less than 5  5 to 15  More than 15 (Please specify) ……………...
3. What is the amount of current annual financial turnover in your company?

 Less than RM10 million  RM 10 million to RM 25 million  More than RM 25 million
4. How many years have your company been involved in the automotive industry?
 Less than 5 years  5 to 10 years  More than 10 years
5. What is the form of ownership for your company?

 Local company  Foreign company  Foreign-local venture
6. What is the type of product does your company manufactures?

 Metal Parts  Plastic Parts  Electronic Parts
 Rubber Parts  Electrical Parts  Others (Please specify) …………………….
7. Which of the following standards does your company certified to? (Tick as many as applied)
 ISO 9001  ISO 14001
 ISO/TS 16949  Others (Please specify) ………………………………………….
1 of 7
221
2.2 Maintenance Management

Maintenance management is defined as a combination of all technical and associated administrative activities required
to keep equipment, installations and other physical assets in the desired operating condition or restore them to this
condition.
8. How important are maintenance management issues to your company’s performance?

 Not important at all  Not important  Neutral  Important  Very important
9. How many years have your company implemented maintenance management systems?
 Less than 5 year  5 to 10 years  More than 10 years
10. Which one is the maintenance strategy that most applied by your company? (Please tick one box only)
 Breakdown maintenance or corrective maintenance (failure based maintenance)
 Preventive maintenance (used based maintenance and time based maintenance)
 Predictive maintenance (condition based maintenance)
 Total Productive Maintenance (TPM)
 Others (Please specify) …………………………………………………………………
2.3 Sustainable Maintenance Management

Sustainable maintenance management is about all processes for ensuring the acceptable assets condition by
eliminating negative environmental impact, prudent in using resources, concern to the safety of employees and
stakeholders, while at the same time economically sound.
11. How do you rank the awareness of the concept of sustainable maintenance systems amongst your employees?
 Very low  Low  Moderate  High  Very high
12. How important are sustainable maintenance management issues to your company’s performance?
 Not important at all  Not important  Neutral  Important  Very important
13. How many years have your company implemented sustainable maintenance management systems?
(e.g. management waste, management pollution, management resources, etc.)
 Less than 1 year  1 to 5 years  More than 5 years
2.4 Sustainable Maintenance Management Systems Initiatives
This section attempts to identify your company’s motivations in implementing sustainable maintenance management
system’s initiatives. Please indicate your perception using the following scale:
1 = strongly disagree 2 = disagree 3 = neutral 4 = agree 5 = strongly agree
Motivation in implementing sustainable maintenance management Perceived Perception

Government environmental regulations 1 2 3 4 5
Market competitiveness 1 2 3 4 5
Company’s image 1 2 3 4 5
International environmental standards 1 2 3 4 5
Customer demand 1 2 3 4 5
Cost benefits 1 2 3 4 5
Stakeholder’s environmental pressure 1 2 3 4 5
Others (Please specify): 1……………………………………………………………………………………………

2……………………………………………………………………………………………
3……………………………………………………………………………………………
2 of 7
222
SECTION 3: SUSTAINABLE MAINTENANCE PERFORMANCE MEASURES
A set of sustainable maintenance performance measures is proposed based on the literature review. This section is
intended to identify your perception on the importance and applicability of the measures for assessing sustainable
maintenance performance in automotive companies.
Please mark your perception in the importance level and applicability level of each measure listed below.
1. Importance level: the degree of importance of the measure.

Please circle your perception of important level of each measure listed below using the following scale:
1 = not important at all 2 = not important 3 = neutral 4 = important 5 = very important
2. Applicability level: the degree of applicability of the measure

Please circle your perception of applicability level of each measure listed below using the following scale:
1 = very low 2 = low 3 = moderate 4 = high 5 = very high
Importance Applicability
Please circle: Please circle:
1 = not important at all 1 = very low
No Measures 2 = not important 2 = low
3 = neutral 3 = moderate
4 = important 4 = high
5 = very important 5 = very high
COST EFFECTIVENESS PERSPECTIVE

1 Return on eco-friendly maintenance 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
investment and innovation
2 Computerized maintenance 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
management system
3 Manufacturing budget 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
3.1 Production cost/ unit 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
4 Maintenance budget 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
4.1 Preventive maintenance cost 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
4.1.1 Direct material cost 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
4.1.2 Direct maintenance labor cost 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
4.1.3 Overhead cost 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
4.2 Corrective maintenance cost 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
4.2.1 Direct material cost 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
4.2.2 Direct maintenance labor cost 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
4.2.3 Overhead cost 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
4.3 Maintenance cost/ unit 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
3 of 7
223
QUALITY PERSPECTIVE
1 Overall plant effectiveness 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1.1 Overall department effectiveness 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1.1.1 Overall equipment effectiveness 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1.1.2 Availability 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1.1.3 Performance rate 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1.1.4 Quality rate 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1.1.5 Mean time between failure 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1.1.6 Number of breakdown 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
PRODUCTIVITY PERSPECTIVE
1 Maintenance efficiency 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1.1 Preventive maintenance task 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1.1.1 Maintenance program achievement 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1.1.2 Start up after shutdown 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1.2 Corrective maintenance task 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1.2.1 Quality for maintenance task (rework) 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1.2.2 Response time for maintenance 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1.2.3 Mean time to repair 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
ENVIRONMENTAL PERSPECTIVE
1 Resources saving 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1.1 Total of spare parts used 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1.1.1 Original spare parts used 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1.1.2 Recycled spare parts used 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1.1.3 Re-purposed spare parts used 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1.1.4 Remanufactured spare parts used 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1.2 Total of lubricants consumption 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
4 of 7
224
1.2.1 Original oils consumption 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1.2.2 Synthetic oils consumption 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1.2.3 Vegetable oils consumption 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1.3 Total of water consumption 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1.3.1 Fresh water consumption 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1.3.2 Recycled water consumption 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1.4 Total of land used 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1.5 Total of energy consumption 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1.5.1 Non-renewable energy consumption 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1.5.2 Renewable energy consumption 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
2 Environmental illegal cases 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
2.1 Water pollution 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
2.1.1 Total of bio-degradable lubricants 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

consumption
2.1.2 Total of bio-degradable cleanser 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

consumption
2.2 Land contamination 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
2.2.1 Total of bio-degradable components 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

used
2.2.2 Total of hazardous waste produced 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
2.3 Air pollution index 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
2.3.1 Total of greenhouse gas emissions 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
LEARNING AND GROWTH PERSPECTIVE

1 Skill improvement related to 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
sustainable maintenance practices
1.1 Training topics 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1.1.1 Training hours per employee 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
5 of 7
225
2 Innovations carried out related to 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

2.1 Innovations suggested 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
2.1.1 Small group meetings/ team work 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
HEALTH AND SAFETY PERSPECTIVE

1 Lost time injury rate 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1.1 Recordable injury rate 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1.1.1 Safety attitude 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1.1.2 Toxic spare parts 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1.1.3 Toxic lubricants 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1.1.4 Toxic cleanser 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
2 Unsafe health and safety practices 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
2.1 Physical working environment 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
2.1.1 Workplace noise level 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
2.1.2 Lighting and ventilation 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION PERSPECTIVE (relevant to maintenance staff only)

1 Employee turn-over rate 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1.1 Employee satisfaction rate 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1.1.1 Employee complaints 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
STAKEHOLDERS SATISFACTION PERSPECTIVE

1 Stakeholders - company partnership in 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
terms of sustainable maintenance
practices
1.1 Stakeholders satisfaction rate 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1.1.1 Stakeholders complaints 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
6 of 7
226
Does your company employ/ implement any other measures? If yes, what are the measures?
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Would you be interested in participating in the next stage of the research?

 Yes  No  Will be considered
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR PARTICIPATING IN THIS RESEARCH.

A copy of the survey report will be available to all respondents.
PLEASE REPLY TO:

Emelia Sari
Researcher
81310 UTM Skudai, Johor - Malaysia
HP: +601116318129
Professor Dr. Awaluddin Bin Mohamed Shaharoun Dr. Azanizawati Bt. Ma’aram
Project Supervisor Project Supervisor
Razak School of Engineering and Advanced Technology, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering,
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia,
Jalan Semarak, 54100 Kuala Lumpur - Malaysia 81310 UTM Skudai, Johor - Malaysia
HP: +60197144115 HP: +60197575109
E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]
7 of 7
227
APPENDIX A5
Example letter for pilot survey
Pilot Survey of Research on Sustainable Maintenace Performance
To whom it may concern <Date>
Dear Sir,
I am Emelia Sari, currently taking a PhD program at Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Universiti
Teknologi Malaysia (UTM), Skudai, Johor – Malaysia.
My PhD research focuses on sustainable maintenance in automotive industries where its objective is
to develop Sustainable Maintenance Performance Measurement Systems (SMPMS) for automotive
companies. I am conducting a pilot survey before the full survey as a part of a study on the
development of SMPMS for automotive companies. The objective of this pilot survey is to examine
the properties of the questionnaire and viability of the survey administration.
With respect to your expertise and past experience, I would be honoured if you could participate as a
respondent of the pilot survey questionnaire that has been developed for this study.
I would be very grateful if you can return the questionnaire before <Date>. We assure you that all
responses will be kept confidential and used for research purposes only.
If you have any further inquiries, please feel free to email me or my supervisors.
Yours sincerely,
Emelia Sari
Researcher
Malaysia
HP: +601116318129
228
APPENDIX A6
Example letter for full survey
Full Survey of Research on Sustainable Maintenace Performance
To whom it may concern <Date>
Dear Sir,
companies. I am conducting a full survey as a part of a study on the development of SMPMS for
automotive companies. The objectives of this survey are to investigate the extent of sustainable
maintenance implementation and the sustainable maintenance performance measures which are used
in automotive industrial practice. In the end, the survey results will provide an input to propose the
appropriate measures in order to assess sustainable maintenance performance in automotive
companies
respondent of the full survey.
I would be very grateful if you can return the questionnaire before <Date>. We assure you that all
responses will be kept confidential and used for research purposes only.
Yours sincerely,
Emelia Sari
Researcher
Malaysia
HP: +601116318129
229
APPENDIX A7
AHP Questionnaire
SURVEY ON THE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF SUSTAINABLE MAINTENANCE PERFORMANCE

MEASURES FOR AUTOMOTIVE COMPANIES
Introduction:
This survey is part of a study on the development of sustainable maintenance performance (SMP) measurement
systems for automotive companies. A set of SMP measures has been proposed, where 14 measures at the corporate
level, 19 measures at the tactical level and 38 measures at the functional level, were identified. The objective of this
survey is to investigate the relative importance of each measure compared to other measures in measuring SMP. In the
end, the results will provide an input to develop SMP measurement systems for automotive companies.
The results will be used for research purposes only and no attempt will be made to identify any individual or
organizations in any publications.
Instruction:
This questionnaire consists of SIX (6) main sections. Please read the questions carefully before answering them.

1. Name : …………………………………………………………………………...
2. Name of the company : ……………………………………………………………………...........
3. Position in the company : …………………………………………………………………………...
4. Experience in the automotive industry : ………………………Years
5. Area of expertise : …………………………………………………………………………...
SECTION 2: SCALE
Please indicate your preference using the following scale:
1 Equally importance Two measures contribute equally to the objective
3 Moderate importance Experience and judgment slightly favor one measure over another
5 Strong importance Experience and judgment strongly favor one measure over another
7 Very strong importance A measure is favored very strongly over another and its dominance
demonstrated in practice
9 Extreme importance The evidence favoring one measure over another is of the highest possible
order of affirmation
2,4,6,8 Intermediate values Used to represent compromise between the preferences listed above
SECTION 3: EXAMPLE
QUESTION: In order to evaluate sustainable maintenance performance, how much is the factor on the left column
more important than the factor on the right column?
NOTE: If the factor on the left column is more important than the factor on the right column, then circle on the red
number. Otherwise, if the factor on the right column is more important than the factor on the left column, then circle on
the blue number.
Left Right
Extreme Scale Extreme
importance equally importance
Factors Factors
importance
Economic 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Environmental
Economic 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Social
Environmental 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Social
EXPLANATION:
 Environmental factor is considered moderate importance over Economic factor
 Economic factor is considered moderate importance to strong importance over Social factor
 Environmental factor is considered very strong importance over Social factor
1 of 9
230
SECTION 4: THE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE AMONGST FACTORS OF THE SUSTAINABLE

MAINTENANCE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT SYSTEMS
In this section, we would like to determine your perception on the relative importance amongst three factors of the
sustainable maintenance performance measurement systems for automotive companies.
QUESTION: In order to evaluate sustainable maintenance performance, how much is the factor on the left column
more important than the factor on the right column?
Left Right
Factors Factors
importance
Economic 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Environmental
Economic 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Social
Environmental 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Social
SECTION 5: THE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE AMONGST PERSPECTIVES OF THE SUSTAINABLE

MAINTENANCE PERFORMANCE FACTORS
In this section, we would like to determine your perception on the relative importance amongst perspectives of the
sustainable maintenance performance factors for automotive companies.
1. ECONOMIC FACTOR
QUESTION: In order to evaluate Economic Factor performance, how much is the perspective on the left column more
important than the perspective on the right column?
Left Right
Perspectives Perspectives
importance
Cost effectiveness 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Quality
Cost effectiveness 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Productivity
Quality 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Productivity
2. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR
QUESTION: In order to evaluate Environmental Factor performance, how much is the perspective on the left column
more important than the perspective on the right column?
Left Right
Perspective Perspective
importance
Resource efficiency 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Pollution and waste
2 of 9
231
3. SOCIAL FACTOR
QUESTION: In order to evaluate Social Factor performance, how much is the perspective on the left column more
important than the perspective on the right column?
Left Right
Perspectives Perspectives
importance
Learning and growth 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Health and safety

Employee
Learning and growth 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
satisfaction
Stakeholder
Learning and growth 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
satisfaction
Employee
Health and safety 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
satisfaction
Stakeholder
Health and safety 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
satisfaction
Employee Stakeholder
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
satisfaction satisfaction
SECTION 6: THE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE AMONGST INDICATORS OF THE SUSTAINABLE

MAINTENANCE PERFORMANCE PERSPECTIVES
In this section, we would like to determine your perception on the relative importance amongst indicators of the
sustainable maintenance performance perspectives for automotive companies.
1. COST EFFECTIVENESS PERSPECTIVE
QUESTION 1: In order to evaluate Cost Effectiveness Perspective performance, how much is the indicator on the left
column more important than the indicator on the right column?
Left Right
Indicators Indicators
importance
Return on eco-
Computerized
friendly maintenance
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 maintenance
investment and
management system
innovations
Return on eco-
friendly maintenance Manufacturing
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
investment and budget
innovations
Return on eco-
friendly maintenance
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Maintenance budget
investment and
innovations
Computerized
Manufacturing
maintenance 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
budget
management system
Computerized
maintenance 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Maintenance budget
management system
Manufacturing 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Maintenance budget
budget
3 of 9
232
QUESTION 2: In order to evaluate Maintenance Budget Indicator performance, how much is the indicator on the
left column more important than the indicator on the right column?
Left Right
importance
Preventive Corrective
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
maintenance cost maintenance cost
Preventive Maintenance cost/
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
maintenance cost unit
Corrective Maintenance cost/
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
maintenance cost unit
QUESTION 3: In order to evaluate Preventive Maintenance Cost Indicator performance, how much is the indicator
on the left column more important than the indicator on the right column?
Left Right
importance
Direct maintenance
Direct material cost 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
labor cost
Direct material cost 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Overhead cost
Direct maintenance
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Overhead cost
labor cost
QUESTION 4: In order to evaluate Corrective Maintenance Cost Indicator performance, how much is the indicator
Left Right
importance
Direct maintenance
Direct material cost 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
labor cost
Direct material cost 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Overhead cost
Direct maintenance
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Overhead cost
labor cost
4 of 9
233
2. QUALITY PERSPECTIVE
QUESTION 1: In order to evaluate Overall Department Effectiveness Indicator performance, how much is the
indicator on the left column more important than the indicator on the right column?
Left Right
importance
Overall equipment
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Availability
effectiveness
Overall equipment
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Performance rate
effectiveness
Overall equipment
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Quality rate
effectiveness
Overall equipment Mean time between
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
effectiveness failures
Overall equipment Number of
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
effectiveness breakdowns
Availability 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Performance rate
Availability 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Quality rate

Mean time between
Availability 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
failures
Number of
Availability 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
breakdowns
Performance rate 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Quality rate
Mean time between
Performance rate 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
failures
Number of
Performance rate 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
breakdowns
Mean time between
Quality rate 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
failures
Number of
Quality rate 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
breakdowns
Mean time between Number of
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
failures breakdowns
3. PRODUCTIVITY PERSPECTIVE
QUESTION 1: In order to evaluate Maintenance Efficiency Indicator performance, how much is the indicator on the
Left Right
Indicator Indicator
importance
Preventive Corrective
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
maintenance task maintenance task
5 of 9
234
QUESTION 2: In order to evaluate Preventive Maintenance Task Indicator performance, how much is the indicator
Left Right
importance
Maintenance
Start up after
program 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
shutdown
achievement
QUESTION 3: In order to evaluate Corrective Maintenance Task Indicator performance, how much is the indicator
Left Right
importance
Quality for
Response time for
maintenance task 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
maintenance
(rework)
Quality for
maintenance task 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mean time to repair
(rework)
Response time for
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mean time to repair
maintenance
4. RESOURCE EFFICIENCY PERSPECTIVE
QUESTION 1: In order to evaluate Resources Saving Indicator performance, how much is the indicator on the left
Left Right
importance
Total of spare parts Total of lubricants

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
used consumption
Total of spare parts Total of energy
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
used consumption
Total of lubricants Total of energy
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
6 of 9
235
QUESTION 2: In order to evaluate Total of Spare Parts Used Indicator performance, how much is the indicator on
the left column more important than the indicator on the right column?
Left Right
importance
Original spare parts Recycled spare parts

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
used used
Original spare parts Re-purposed spare
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
used parts used
Original spare parts Remanufactured
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
used spare parts used
Recycled spare parts Re-purposed spare
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
used parts used
Recycled spare parts Remanufactured
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
used spare parts used
Re-purposed spare Remanufactured
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
parts used spare parts used
QUESTION 3: In order to evaluate Total of Energy Consumption Indicator performance, how much is the indicator
Left Right
Indicator Indicator
importance
Non-renewable Renewable energy

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
energy consumption consumption
5. POLLUTION AND WASTE PERSPECTIVE
QUESTION 1: In order to evaluate Environmental Illegal Cases Indicator performance, how much is the indicator
Left Right
importance
Water pollution 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Land contamination
Water pollution 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Air pollution index
Land contamination 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Air pollution index
QUESTION 2: In order to evaluate Water Pollution Indicator performance, how much is the indicator on the left
Left Right
importance
Total of bio- 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Total of bio-

degradable lubricants degradable cleanser
7 of 9
236
QUESTION 3: In order to evaluate Land Contamination Indicator performance, how much is the indicator on the
Left Right
importance
Total of bio-
Total of hazardous
degradable 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
waste produced
components used
6. LEARNING AND GROWTH PERSPECTIVE
QUESTION 1: In order to evaluate Learning and Growth Perspective performance, how much is the indicator on the
Left Right
Indicator Indicator
importance
Skill improvement Innovations carried

related to sustainable out related to
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
maintenance sustainable
practices maintenance
7. HEALTH AND SAFETY PERSPECTIVE
QUESTION 1: In order to evaluate Health and Safety Perspective performance, how much is the indicator on the left
Left Right
Indicator Indicator
importance
Unsafe health and

Lost time injury rate 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
safety practices
QUESTION 2: In order to evaluate Recordable Injury Rate Indicator performance, how much is the indicator on the
Left Right
importance
Safety attitude 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Toxic spare parts
Safety attitude 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Toxic lubricants
Safety attitude 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Toxic cleanser
Toxic spare parts 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Toxic lubricants
Toxic spare parts 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Toxic cleanser
Toxic lubricants 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Toxic cleanser
8 of 9
237
QUESTION 3: In order to evaluate Physical Working Environment Indicator performance, how much is the
indicator on the left column more important than the indicator on the right column?
Left Right
Indicator Indicator
importance
Workplace noise Lighting and

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
level ventilation

PLEASE REPLY TO:

Emelia Sari
Researcher
HP: +601116318129
HP: +60197144115 HP: +60197575109
9 of 9
238
APPENDIX A8
Example letter for AHP survey
AHP Survey of Research on Sustainable Maintenace Performance
To whom it may concern 20th April 2015
Dear Sir,
companies. I am conducting a survey as a part of a study on the development of SMPMS for
automotive companies. A set of Sustainable Maintenance Performance (SMP) measures has been
proposed, where 14 measures at the corporate level, 19 measures at the tactical level and 38 measures
at the functional level, were identified. The objective of this survey is to investigate the relative
importance of each measure compared to other measures in measuring SMP. In the end, the results
will provide an input to develop SMPMS for automotive companies.
respondent of the AHP questionnaire that has been developed for this survey.
I would be very grateful if you can return the questionnaire before 4th May 2015. We assure you that
all responses will be kept confidential and used for research purposes only.
Yours sincerely,
Emelia Sari
Researcher
Malaysia
HP: +601116318129
239
APPENDIX A9
Sustainable maintenance objectives questionnaire
SURVEY ON THE RELATIONSHIP OF SUSTAINABLE MAINTENANCE OBJECTIVES

FOR AUTOMOTIVE COMPANIES
1. Name : ………………………………………………………………………...
2. Name of the company : …………………………………………………………………...........
3. Position in the company : ………………………………………………………………………...
5. Area of expertise : ………………………………………………………………………...
Introduction:
This survey is part of a study on the development of Sustainable Maintenance Performance Measurement Systems
(SMPMS) for automotive companies. A set of sustainable maintenance objectives have been proposed.
The objective of this survey is to specify the relationship among sustainable maintenance objectives at the corporate
level. In the end, the results will provide an input to develop SMPMS for automotive companies.
The results will be used for research purposes only and no attempt will be made to identify any individuals or
SECTION 2: SURVEY INSTRUCTION
Please review the relationship of sustainable maintenance objectives for automotive companies as demonstrated on
page 2. Kindly determine your perception whether you agree or disagree in the relationship among objectives.
Steps:
If agree, you may skip steps below, and proceed to Section 3 (Comments).
If disagree;
1. You may adjust/ mark-up the relationship among objectives on page 2 when necessary, by deleting,
moving or modifying the arrows. Then, put your comments on Section 3. Or,
2. If totally disagree with the relationships proposed by page 2, please draw the new relationships on
the template provided on page 3. Then, put your comments on Section 3.
1
240

Sustainable Maintenance Performance Objec
ves

Reduce the
Increase the return on
Reduce the
manufacturing budget eco‐friendly maintenance maintenance budget
investment and innova ons
Financial

Increase the innova ons
carried out related to

Reduce the environmental
Reduce the unsafe health
Illegal cases and safety prac ces

Increase the stakeholders—
company partnership in terms of
sustainable maintenance prac ces
Stakeholders

Increase the overall plant
Improve the resources
effec veness saving

Employ the computerized

Increase the maintenance
maintenance efficiency management system
Internal
Process

Reduce the employee
Reduce the lost
turn‐over rate me injury rate
Increase the skill
improvement related to
prac ces
Learning and
Growth
2
241
Sustainable Maintenance Performance Objec
ves

Reduce the
Increase the return on
Reduce the
manufacturing budget eco‐friendly maintenance maintenance budget
investment and innova ons
Financial

Increase the innova ons
carried out related to

Reduce the environmental
Reduce the unsafe health
Illegal cases and safety prac ces

Increase the stakeholders—
company partnership in terms of
sustainable maintenance prac ces
Stakeholders

Increase the overall plant
Improve the resources
effec veness saving

Employ the computerized

Increase the maintenance
maintenance efficiency management system
Internal
Process

Reduce the employee
Reduce the lost
turn‐over rate me injury rate
Increase the skill
improvement related to
prac ces
Learning and
Growth
3
242
SECTION 3: COMMENTS
Please write down your comments regarding the relationship among objectives.

PLEASE REPLY TO:

Emelia Sari
Researcher
HP: +601116318129
HP: +60197144115 HP: +60197575109
4
243
APPENDIX A10
Example letter for sustainable maintenance objectives survey
Interview of Sustainable Maintenance Objectives
En. Abdul Razak Bin Abu Bakar 26th June 2015

Head of Quality, Environment, Safety & Health
System Section (QESH)
SIRIM Training Services Sdn. Bhd.
Dear Sir,
My research focuses on sustainable maintenance in automotive industries where its objective is to

develop Sustainable Maintenance Performance Measurement Systems (SMPMS) for automotive
companies. I am conducting an interview as a part of a study on the development of SMPMS for
automotive companies. The objective of this interview is to specify the relationship among sustainable
maintenance objectives at the corporate level. In the end, the results will provide an input to develop
SMPMS for automotive companies.
With respect to your expertise and past experience, I would be honoured if you could participate as an
interviewee.
We assure you that all responses will be kept confidential and used for research purposes only.
Thank you in advance for your time and participation
Yours sincerely,
Emelia Sari
Researcher
Malaysia
HP: +601116318129
244
APPENDIX A11
Evaluation tool questionnaire
EVALUATION ON SUSTAINABLE MAINTENANCE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT TOOL
Introduction:
This survey is part of a study on the development of sustainable maintenance performance (SMP) measurement system
for automotive companies where a Microsoft Excel based-tool has been developed. The objective of this survey is to
investigate the practicability of the tool.
The results will be used for research purposes only and no attempt will be made to identify any individual or
Instruction:
This questionnaire consists of THREE (3) main sections. Please read the questions carefully before answering them.

1. Name : …………………………………………………………………………...
2. Name of the company : ……………………………………………………………………...........
3. Position in the company : …………………………………………………………………………...
5. Area of expertise : …………………………………………………………………………...
SECTION 2: FEEDBACK
Please indicate your perception using the following scale for the question 1-2:
1 = strongly not believe 2 = not believe 3 = neutral 4 = believe 5 = strongly believe
1. To what extend do you believe that the use of tool leads to easy 1 2 3 4 5
quantification of current SMP level?
2. To what extend do you believe that company managers and competent 1 2 3 4 5
employees will show interest to use this tool?
SECTION 3: GENERAL COMMENTS

Please write down your comments regarding the developed tool
1 of 2
245
PLEASE REPLY TO:

Emelia Sari
Researcher
HP: +601116318129
HP: +60197144115 HP: +60197575109
2 of 2
246
APPENDIX A12
Example letter for evaluation tool
Evaluation of Sustainable Maintenance Performance Tool
To whom it may concern 29th December 2016
Dear Sir,
to develop Sustainable Maintenance Performance Measurement System (SMPMS) for automotive
companies. I am conducting a survey as a part of a study on the development of SMPMS for
automotive companies. A set of Sustainable Maintenance Performance (SMP) measures has been
proposed, where 14 measures at the corporate level, 19 measures at the tactical level and 38 measures
at the functional level, were identified. A Microsoft Excel-based tool for SMP measurement was also
developed to assist organizational efforts and reduce time. The objective of this survey is to
investigate the effectiveness and practicability of the tool. In the end, the results will provide an input
to develop SMPMS for automotive companies.
respondent of this survey.
We assure you that all responses will be kept confidential and used for research purposes only.
Thank you in advance for your time and participation
Yours sincerely,
Emelia Sari
Researcher
Malaysia
HP: +601116318129
247
APPENDIX B1
Background of respondents
B1.1 Characteristics of Respondents
Position in the company

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Executive 48 47.5 47.5 47.5
Engineer 32 31.7 31.7 79.2
Valid Supervisor 6 5.9 5.9 85.1
Technician 15 14.9 14.9 100.0
Total 101 100.0 100.0
Experience in the automotive industry

Less than 5
20 19.8 19.8 19.8
years
5 to 10 years 43 42.6 42.6 62.4
Valid
More than 10
38 37.6 37.6 100.0
years
Total 101 100.0 100.0
B1.2 General Information of Company
The number of full time employees

Less than 51 42 41.6 41.6 41.6
51 to 150 49 48.5 48.5 90.1
Valid
More than 150 10 9.9 9.9 100.0
Total 101 100.0 100.0
248
The number of full time maintenance employees

Less than 5 68 67.3 68.0 68.0
5 to 15 23 22.8 23.0 91.0
Valid
More than 15 9 8.9 9.0 100.0
Total 100 99.0 100.0
Missing 1 1.0
Total 101 100.0
The annual financial turnover

Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Less than RM 10
69 68.3 69.0 69.0
million
RM 10 million to RM
21 20.8 21.0 90.0
Valid 25 million
More than RM 25
10 9.9 10.0 100.0
million
Total 100 99.0 100.0
Missing 1 1.0
Total 101 100.0
The years of involved in automotive industry

Less than 5
38 37.6 37.6 37.6
years
5 to 10 years 29 28.7 28.7 66.3
Valid
More than 10
34 33.7 33.7 100.0
years
Total 101 100.0 100.0
The ownership
Local company 70 69.3 69.3 69.3
Foreign company 11 10.9 10.9 80.2
Valid Foreign-local
20 19.8 19.8 100.0
venture
Total 101 100.0 100.0
249
The type of product

Metal parts 46 41.1 41.1 41.1
Plastic parts 26 23.2 23.2 64.3
Electronic parts 10 8.9 8.9 73.2
Valid Rubber parts 18 16.1 16.1 89.3
Electrical parts 9 8.0 8.0 97.3
Others 3 2.7 2.7 100.0
Total 112 100.0 100.0
The certification
ISO 9001 56 44.8 44.8 44.8
ISO 14001 39 31.2 31.2 76.0
Valid ISO/TS 16949 29 23.2 23.2 99.2
Others 1 .8 .8 100.0
Total 125 100.0 100.0
B1.3 Maintenance Management
The importance level of maintenance management issues

Not important
2 2.0 2.0 2.0
at all
Not important 5 5.0 5.0 6.9
Valid Neutral 17 16.8 16.8 23.8
Important 56 55.4 55.4 79.2
Very important 21 20.8 20.8 100.0
Total 101 100.0 100.0
250
The years of implementing maintenance management systems

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Less than 5 years 22 21.8 21.8 21.8
5 to 10 years 43 42.6 42.6 64.4
Valid
More than 10 years 36 35.6 35.6 100.0
Total 101 100.0 100.0
The type of maintenance strategy that most applied

Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Breakdown
maintenance or
corrective maintenance 15 14.9 14.9 14.9
(failure based
maintenance)
Preventive
maintenance (used
based maintenance and 63 62.4 62.4 77.2
Valid time based
maintenance)
Predictive maintenance
(condition based 10 9.9 9.9 87.1
maintenance)
Total Productive
13 12.9 12.9 100.0
Maintenance (TPM)
Total 101 100.0 100.0
B1.4 Sustainable Maintenance Management
The awareness of sustainable maintenance systems concept

Very low 3 3.0 3.0 3.0
Low 10 9.9 9.9 12.9
Moderate 48 47.5 47.5 60.4
Valid
High 35 34.7 34.7 95.0
Very high 5 5.0 5.0 100.0
Total 101 100.0 100.0
251
The important level of sustainable maintenance management issues

Not important 3 3.0 3.0 3.0
Neutral 43 42.6 42.6 45.5
Valid Important 48 47.5 47.5 93.1
Very important 7 6.9 6.9 100.0
Total 101 100.0 100.0
The years of implementing sustainable maintenance management systems

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Less than 1 year 24 23.8 23.8 23.8
1 to 5 years 45 44.6 44.6 68.3
Valid
More than 5 years 32 31.7 31.7 100.0
Total 101 100.0 100.0
252
APPENDIX B2
Results of motivation in implementing
sustainable maintenance management initiatives
Motivation in implementing sustainable maintenance management

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Government
environmental 101 1 5 3.52 .782
regulations
Market
101 2 5 3.66 .697
competitiveness
Company’s image 101 2 5 3.82 .727
International
environmental 101 2 5 3.66 .725
standards
Customer demand 101 2 5 3.59 .724
Cost benefits 101 2 5 3.66 .803
Stakeholder’s
101 2 5 3.51 .756
environmental pressure
Valid N (listwise) 101
253
APPENDIX B3
Reliability test of importance level
P1. Cost Effectiveness Perspective
Case Processing Summary
N %
Valid 101 100.0

a
Cases Excluded 0 .0
Total 101 100.0
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the

procedure.
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean Scale Corrected Item- Cronbach's

if Item Variance if Total Alpha if Item
Deleted Item Deleted Correlation Deleted
Return on eco-friendly
maintenance investment and 50.26 78.093 .644 .964
innovation
50.13 79.373 .614 .965
management system
Manufacturing budget 49.84 77.495 .856 .959
Production cost/ unit 49.84 77.835 .829 .960
Maintenance budget 49.88 77.666 .817 .960
Preventive maintenance cost 49.83 77.761 .827 .960
Direct material cost (PM) 49.99 77.810 .782 .961
49.88 76.766 .843 .959
(PM)
Overhead cost (PM) 49.88 77.946 .796 .960
Corrective maintenance cost 49.98 76.540 .827 .960
Direct material cost (CM) 49.95 77.428 .814 .960
49.88 77.506 .815 .960
(CM)
Overhead cost (CM) 49.89 77.458 .814 .960
Maintenance cost/ unit 49.93 76.585 .858 .959
254
Scale Statistics
Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items
53.78 89.732 9.473 14
P2. Quality Perspective
N %
Valid 101 100.0
Cases Excludeda 0 .0
Total 101 100.0

procedure.

Overall plant effectiveness 27.12 24.006 .788 .954

Overall department effectiveness 27.15 23.828 .771 .955
Overall equipment effectiveness 27.01 23.570 .849 .950
Availability 27.05 23.148 .887 .948
Performance rate 27.00 23.020 .889 .948
Quality rate 26.95 23.068 .885 .948
Mean time between failure 27.07 23.945 .823 .952
Number of breakdown 27.03 24.129 .802 .953
Scale Statistics
30.91 30.622 5.534 8

255
P3. Productivity Perspective
N %
Valid 101 100.0
Total 101 100.0

procedure.

Maintenance efficiency 27.82 21.628 .795 .957
Preventive maintenance task 27.85 20.768 .893 .951
Corrective maintenance task 27.93 20.725 .866 .953
Maintenance program
27.89 20.478 .904 .951
achievement
Quality for maintenance task
27.95 20.868 .828 .955
(rework)
Response time for maintenance 27.88 21.426 .809 .956
Start up after shutdown 27.83 20.661 .839 .955
Mean time to repair 27.87 21.133 .830 .955
Scale Statistics
31.86 27.221 5.217 8

256
P4. Environmental Perspective
N %
Valid 101 100.0
Total 101 100.0

procedure.
Scale Mean Scale Corrected Cronbach's

if Item Variance if Item-Total Alpha if Item
Resources saving 84.94 277.716 .743 .954
Total of spare parts used 84.77 281.418 .636 .955
Original spare parts used 84.73 282.858 .570 .955
Recycled spare parts used 84.95 279.288 .651 .955
Re-purposed spare parts used 84.95 279.128 .703 .954
Remanufactured spare parts used 84.96 280.578 .661 .955
Total of lubricants consumption 84.73 285.498 .535 .956
Original oils consumption 84.91 283.342 .460 .957
Synthetic oils consumption 84.54 288.350 .363 .957
Vegetable oils consumption 85.62 275.877 .550 .956
Total of water consumption 84.91 283.142 .557 .956
Fresh water consumption 85.05 280.828 .599 .955
Recycled water consumption 85.11 277.598 .683 .954
Total of land used 85.17 278.261 .641 .955
Total of energy consumption 84.80 278.760 .631 .955
Non-renewable energy consumption 85.19 271.654 .741 .954
Renewable energy consumption 85.10 272.710 .815 .953
Environmental illegal cases 84.87 277.533 .692 .954
Water pollution 84.85 277.628 .698 .954
Land contamination 84.79 278.086 .686 .954
Total of bio-degradable components used 85.21 272.966 .741 .954
Total of bio-degradable lubricants consumption 85.30 270.611 .791 .953
Total of bio-degradable cleanser consumption 85.30 271.051 .785 .953
Total of hazardous waste produced 85.00 272.940 .754 .954
Air pollution index 84.99 271.290 .803 .953
Total of greenhouse gas emissions 85.15 273.148 .717 .954
257
Scale Statistics
88.40 299.922 17.318 26
P5. Learning and Growth Perspective
N %
Valid 101 100.0
Total 101 100.0

procedure.

Skill improvement related to

17.52 11.612 .822 .930
Training topics 17.49 11.572 .815 .930
Training hours per employee 17.50 11.512 .827 .929
Innovation carried out related to
17.58 11.365 .827 .929
Innovation suggested 17.50 11.312 .837 .928
Small group meetings/ team work 17.54 11.470 .801 .932
Scale Statistics
21.03 16.329 4.041 6

258
P6. Health and Safety Perspective
N %
Valid 101 100.0
Total 101 100.0

procedure.

Lost time injury rate 33.77 44.178 .857 .975
Recordable injury rate 33.71 44.187 .860 .975
Safety attitude 33.60 43.782 .889 .974
Toxic spare parts 33.71 43.307 .905 .974
Toxic lubricants 33.71 43.827 .915 .973
Toxic cleanser 33.72 43.362 .911 .973
Unsafe health and safety practices 33.66 44.306 .885 .974
Physical working environment 33.70 43.691 .900 .974
Workplace noise level 33.67 43.342 .887 .974
Lighting and ventilation 33.73 42.838 .875 .975
Scale Statistics
37.45 53.790 7.334 10

259
P7. Employee Satisfaction Perspective
N %
Valid 101 100.0
Total 101 100.0

procedure.

Employee turn-over rate 7.10 2.250 .844 .951
Employee satisfaction rate 7.07 2.145 .890 .916
Employee complaints 7.08 2.094 .923 .891
Scale Statistics
10.62 4.737 2.176 3
P8. Stakeholders Satisfaction Perspective
N %
Valid 101 100.0

a
Cases Excluded 0 .0
Total 101 100.0

procedure.
260

Stakeholders - company partnership in

terms of sustainable maintenance 6.83 2.861 .936 .972
practices
Stakeholders satisfaction rate 6.80 2.740 .953 .960
Stakeholders complaints 6.80 2.700 .954 .960
Scale Statistics
10.22 6.152 2.480 3

261
APPENDIX B4
Reliability test of applicability level
P1. Cost Effectiveness Perspective
N %
Valid 101 100.0

a
Cases Excluded 0 .0
Total 101 100.0

procedure.

Return on eco-friendly
maintenance investment and 47.28 90.762 .658 .969
innovation
47.14 90.041 .709 .968
management system
Manufacturing budget 46.87 89.433 .847 .965
Production cost/ unit 46.84 89.515 .821 .966
Maintenance budget 46.92 87.654 .853 .965
Preventive maintenance cost 46.86 89.061 .808 .966
Direct material cost (PM) 46.93 90.185 .796 .966
46.83 87.961 .863 .965
(PM)
Overhead cost (PM) 46.84 88.215 .832 .965
Corrective maintenance cost 47.00 89.920 .807 .966
Direct material cost (CM) 46.94 89.256 .818 .966
46.86 87.921 .884 .964
(CM)
Overhead cost (CM) 46.84 87.455 .836 .965
Maintenance cost/ unit 46.92 87.954 .870 .964
262
Scale Statistics
50.54 102.910 10.144 14
P2. Quality Perspective
N %
Valid 101 100.0
Total 101 100.0

procedure.

Overall plant effectiveness 24.29 32.147 .838 .939

Overall department effectiveness 24.31 31.995 .830 .940
Overall equipment effectiveness 24.24 31.703 .863 .937
Availability 24.24 31.343 .904 .935
Performance rate 24.22 31.192 .896 .935
Quality rate 24.19 30.914 .881 .936
Mean time between failure 24.40 31.902 .713 .948
Number of breakdown 24.53 32.651 .608 .956
Scale Statistics
27.77 41.138 6.414 8

263
P3. Productivity Perspective
N %
Valid 101 100.0
Total 101 100.0

procedure.

Maintenance efficiency 24.79 22.646 .790 .925
Preventive maintenance task 24.71 22.127 .834 .921
Corrective maintenance task 24.81 21.834 .833 .921
Maintenance program
24.75 21.948 .821 .922
achievement
Quality for maintenance task
24.75 22.008 .768 .926
(rework)
Response time for maintenance 24.78 22.492 .765 .926
Start up after shutdown 24.93 21.565 .742 .929
Mean time to repair 24.89 22.498 .646 .936
Scale Statistics
28.35 28.649 5.352 8

264
P4. Environmental Perspective
N %
Valid 101 100.0

a
Cases Excluded 0 .0
Total 101 100.0

procedure.

Resources saving 78.10 352.270 .625 .963

Total of spare parts used 77.91 350.602 .645 .963
Original spare parts used 77.98 352.780 .565 .964
Recycled spare parts used 78.09 349.182 .666 .963
Re-purposed spare parts used 78.12 345.806 .808 .962
Remanufactured spare parts used 78.12 344.246 .765 .962
Total of lubricants consumption 77.86 357.681 .527 .964
Original oils consumption 78.00 350.320 .585 .964
Synthetic oils consumption 77.59 359.704 .396 .965
Vegetable oils consumption 78.62 347.097 .592 .964
Total of water consumption 77.90 359.190 .516 .964
Fresh water consumption 78.03 353.429 .631 .963
Recycled water consumption 78.13 348.633 .685 .963
Total of land used 78.17 347.961 .678 .963
Total of energy consumption 77.79 352.406 .600 .964
Non-renewable energy consumption 78.32 336.639 .836 .961
Renewable energy consumption 78.17 345.561 .752 .962
Environmental illegal cases 78.25 342.728 .795 .962
Water pollution 78.11 341.258 .797 .962
Land contamination 78.13 342.013 .783 .962
Total of bio-degradable components used 78.36 339.992 .801 .962
Total of bio-degradable lubricants consumption 78.46 339.090 .827 .962
Total of bio-degradable cleanser consumption 78.42 337.845 .840 .961
Total of hazardous waste produced 78.21 340.106 .786 .962
Air pollution index 78.25 338.328 .829 .962
Total of greenhouse gas emissions 78.37 341.734 .781 .962
265
Scale Statistics
81.26 374.553 19.353 26
P5. Learning and Growth Perspective
N %
Valid 101 100.0
Total 101 100.0

procedure.


15.79 19.026 .772 .937
Training topics 15.81 18.614 .840 .930
Training hours per employee 15.87 18.953 .805 .934
Innovation carried out related to
16.06 17.336 .871 .925
Innovation suggested 15.99 17.210 .869 .925
Small group meetings/ team
16.07 17.045 .817 .934
work
Scale Statistics
19.12 25.666 5.066 6

266
P6. Health and Safety Perspective
N %
Valid 101 100.0
Total 101 100.0

procedure.

Deleted Item Correlation Deleted
Deleted
Lost time injury rate 30.31 62.635 .873 .968

Recordable injury rate 30.23 61.318 .888 .968
Safety attitude 30.19 63.194 .871 .969
Toxic spare parts 30.39 61.599 .923 .967
Toxic lubricants 30.36 61.772 .923 .967
Toxic cleanser 30.33 61.622 .899 .968
Unsafe health and safety practices 30.21 65.226 .811 .971
Physical working environment 30.14 65.641 .812 .971
Workplace noise level 30.28 63.642 .859 .969
Lighting and ventilation 30.29 64.167 .812 .971
Scale Statistics
33.63 77.634 8.811 10

267
P7. Employee Satisfaction Perspective
N %
Valid 101 100.0

a
Cases Excluded 0 .0
Total 101 100.0

procedure.

Employee turn-over rate 6.20 4.240 .866 .920

Employee satisfaction rate 6.08 4.534 .860 .925
Employee complaints 6.22 4.092 .902 .891
Scale Statistics
9.25 9.368 3.061 3
P8. Stakeholders Satisfaction Perspective
N %
Valid 101 100.0
Total 101 100.0

procedure.
268

Stakeholders - company
partnership in terms of sustainable 6.16 3.975 .925 .922
maintenance practices
Stakeholders satisfaction rate 6.09 3.922 .918 .926
Stakeholders complaints 6.19 3.894 .878 .958
Scale Statistics
9.22 8.652 2.941 3

269
APPENDIX B5
Results of EFA for importance level
1. Economic Factor
Correlation Matrix
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
1 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
2 0.8 1.0 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4
3 0.6 0.5 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6
4 0.6 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6
5 0.6 0.5 0.8 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.6
6 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.8 1.0 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6
7 0.5 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6
8 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5
9 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 1.0 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5
10 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 1.0 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5
11 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
12 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
13 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5
14 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.6
15 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6
16 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.8 1.0 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6
17 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.6
18 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7
19 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.7
20 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7
21 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7
22 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.0 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6
23 0.5 0.4 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6
24 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7
25 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7
26 0.5 0.4 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7
27 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.8
28 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.7
29 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.8 1.0 0.8
30 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.8 1.0
KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .916

Approx. Chi-Square 3641.686
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity df 435
Sig. .000
270
Total Variance Explained
Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Rotation Sums of Squared
Component
Loadings Loadings
Total % of Cumulative Total % of Cumulative Total % of Cumulative
Variance % Variance % Variance %
1 18.557 61.856 61.856 18.557 61.856 61.856 10.201 34.005 34.005
2 2.466 8.222 70.077 2.466 8.222 70.077 8.354 27.847 61.852
3 1.224 4.078 74.156 1.224 4.078 74.156 3.691 12.304 74.156
4 1.129 3.764 77.920
5 .822 2.739 80.658
6 .686 2.286 82.944
7 .573 1.910 84.854
8 .534 1.779 86.633
9 .449 1.497 88.129
10 .401 1.337 89.467
11 .353 1.178 90.644
12 .325 1.083 91.727
13 .275 .918 92.645
14 .267 .890 93.535
15 .245 .816 94.351
16 .228 .761 95.113
17 .211 .703 95.815
18 .182 .607 96.422
19 .161 .536 96.958
20 .157 .524 97.482
21 .121 .403 97.885
22 .114 .380 98.265
23 .105 .350 98.615
24 .094 .315 98.929
25 .085 .283 99.212
26 .067 .223 99.435
27 .058 .195 99.630
28 .051 .171 99.801
29 .034 .112 99.913
30 .026 .087 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

271
Rotated Component Matrixa
Component
1 2 3
Return on eco-friendly maintenance investment and innovation .167 .349 .778

Computerized maintenance management system .148 .363 .691
Manufacturing budget .433 .650 .423
Production cost/ unit .428 .622 .406
Maintenance budget .430 .628 .372
Preventive maintenance cost .356 .668 .391
Direct material cost (PM) .270 .740 .255
Direct maintenance labor cost (PM) .290 .781 .288
Overhead cost (PM) .330 .724 .264
Corrective maintenance cost .327 .715 .341
Direct material cost (CM) .280 .793 .192
Direct maintenance labor cost (CM) .283 .840 .137
Overhead cost (CM) .304 .842 .098
Maintenance cost/ unit .437 .775 .184
Overall plant effectiveness .772 .207 .149
Overall department effectiveness .737 .234 .165
Overall equipment effectiveness .788 .307 .171
Availability .824 .356 .122
Performance rate .831 .303 .110
Quality rate .832 .331 .103
Mean time between failure .764 .391 .035
Number of breakdown .737 .439 .015
Maintenance efficiency .602 .328 .458
Preventive maintenance task .682 .290 .533
Corrective maintenance task .677 .264 .541
Maintenance program achievement .712 .311 .451
Quality for maintenance task (rework) .696 .271 .365
Response time for maintenance .654 .348 .296
Start up after shutdown .704 .328 .324
Mean time to repair .712 .296 .330

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 5 iterations.
272
Communalities
Initial Extraction
Return on eco-friendly maintenance investment and innovation 1.000 .754

Computerized maintenance management system 1.000 .631
Manufacturing budget 1.000 .789
Production cost/ unit 1.000 .734
Maintenance budget 1.000 .718
Preventive maintenance cost 1.000 .726
Direct material cost (PM) 1.000 .685
Direct maintenance labor cost (PM) 1.000 .777
Overhead cost (PM) 1.000 .703
Corrective maintenance cost 1.000 .733
Direct material cost (CM) 1.000 .744
Direct maintenance labor cost (CM) 1.000 .805
Overhead cost (CM) 1.000 .810
Maintenance cost/ unit 1.000 .825
Overall plant effectiveness 1.000 .660
Overall department effectiveness 1.000 .625
Overall equipment effectiveness 1.000 .745
Availability 1.000 .821
Performance rate 1.000 .793
Quality rate 1.000 .812
Mean time between failure 1.000 .738
Number of breakdown 1.000 .736
Maintenance efficiency 1.000 .679
Preventive maintenance task 1.000 .833
Corrective maintenance task 1.000 .820
Maintenance program achievement 1.000 .806
Quality for maintenance task (rework) 1.000 .691
Response time for maintenance 1.000 .637
Start up after shutdown 1.000 .709
Mean time to repair 1.000 .703
273
2. Environmental Factor
2.1 Indicators were grouped into single perspective
Correlation Matrix
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
1 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6
2 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5
3 0.7 0.8 1.0 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4
4 0.7 0.5 0.6 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4
5 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5
6 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.5
7 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.7 0.7 1.0 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3
8 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 1.0 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.2
9 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.6 1.0 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2
10 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 1.0 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.4
11 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.6 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4
12 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.0 0.7 0.8 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5
13 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 1.0 0.7 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4
14 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.7 1.0 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5
15 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 1.0 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4
16 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.4 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.6
17 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.6
18 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5
19 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.8 1.0 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.6
20 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.9 1.0 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.6
21 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.6
22 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.7
23 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.7
24 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.7
25 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 1.0 0.8
26 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 1.0

Sig. .000
274
Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared
Component
Loadings
Total % of Cumulative Total % of Cumulative
Variance % Variance %
1 12.725 48.943 48.943 12.725 48.943 48.943
2 2.880 11.077 60.019
3 2.226 8.563 68.583
4 1.417 5.449 74.031
5 .970 3.732 77.763
6 .783 3.012 80.775
7 .720 2.770 83.545
8 .653 2.512 86.057
9 .566 2.176 88.233
10 .426 1.639 89.872
11 .417 1.603 91.476
12 .348 1.340 92.815
13 .282 1.084 93.899
14 .277 1.066 94.965
15 .211 .812 95.777
16 .195 .750 96.527
17 .163 .627 97.154
18 .142 .547 97.701
19 .132 .507 98.208
20 .111 .427 98.635
21 .099 .379 99.014
22 .079 .306 99.320
23 .060 .231 99.551
24 .055 .212 99.763
25 .035 .133 99.896
26 .027 .104 100.000

275
2.2 Indicators were grouped into two perspectives

Component
Loadings Loadings
1 12.725 48.943 48.943 12.725 48.943 48.943 8.963 34.471 34.471
2 2.880 11.077 60.019 2.880 11.077 60.019 6.643 25.548 60.019
3 2.226 8.563 68.583
4 1.417 5.449 74.031
5 .970 3.732 77.763
6 .783 3.012 80.775
7 .720 2.770 83.545
8 .653 2.512 86.057
9 .566 2.176 88.233
10 .426 1.639 89.872
11 .417 1.603 91.476
12 .348 1.340 92.815
13 .282 1.084 93.899
14 .277 1.066 94.965
15 .211 .812 95.777
16 .195 .750 96.527
17 .163 .627 97.154
18 .142 .547 97.701
19 .132 .507 98.208
20 .111 .427 98.635
21 .099 .379 99.014
22 .079 .306 99.320
23 .060 .231 99.551
24 .055 .212 99.763
25 .035 .133 99.896
26 .027 .104 100.000

276
Component
1 2
Resources saving .372 .796

Total of spare parts used .280 .738
Original spare parts used .124 .830
Recycled spare parts used .272 .772
Re-purposed spare parts used .276 .853
Remanufactured spare parts used .202 .884
Total of lubricants consumption .099 .808
Original oils consumption .475 .162
Synthetic oils consumption .417 .068
Vegetable oils consumption .605 .152
Total of water consumption .628 .113
Fresh water consumption .772 .005
Recycled water consumption .771 .139
Total of land used .725 .136
Total of energy consumption .315 .676
Non-renewable energy consumption .719 .336
Renewable energy consumption .737 .421
Environmental illegal cases .677 .312
Water pollution .680 .325
Land contamination .649 .350
Total of bio-degradable components used .760 .277
Total of bio-degradable lubricants consumption .783 .324
Total of bio-degradable cleanser consumption .779 .321
Total of hazardous waste produced .703 .384
Air pollution index .665 .505
Total of greenhouse gas emissions .647 .392

277
Communalities
Initial Extraction
Resources saving 1.000 .773

Total of spare parts used 1.000 .623
Original spare parts used 1.000 .704
Recycled spare parts used 1.000 .671
Re-purposed spare parts
1.000 .803
used
Remanufactured spare
1.000 .822
parts used
Total of lubricants
1.000 .662
consumption
Original oils consumption 1.000 .252
Synthetic oils consumption 1.000 .179
Vegetable oils consumption 1.000 .389
Total of water consumption 1.000 .407
Fresh water consumption 1.000 .597
Recycled water
1.000 .614
consumption
Total of land used 1.000 .544
Total of energy
1.000 .557
consumption
Non-renewable energy
1.000 .630
consumption
Renewable energy
1.000 .720
consumption
Environmental illegal cases 1.000 .556
Water pollution 1.000 .568
Land contamination 1.000 .543
Total of bio-degradable
1.000 .654
components used
1.000 .718
lubricants consumption
1.000 .710
cleanser consumption
Total of hazardous waste
1.000 .642
produced
Air pollution index 1.000 .697
Total of greenhouse gas
1.000 .573
emissions
278
Conclusion:
Based on loadings value and communalities: four indicators were omitted.
- Original oils consumption (item 8)
- Synthetic oils consumption (item 9)
- Vegetable oils consumption (item 10)
- Total of water consumption (item 11)
2.3 22 indicators were grouped into two perspectives
Correlation Matrix
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
1 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6
2 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5
3 0.7 0.8 1.0 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4
4 0.7 0.5 0.6 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4
5 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5
6 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.5
7 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.7 0.7 1.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3
12 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.7 0.8 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5
13 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.7 1.0 0.7 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4
14 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.8 0.7 1.0 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5
15 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.4 1.0 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4
16 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.4 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.6
17 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.6
18 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5
19 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.8 1.0 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.6
20 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.9 1.0 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.6
21 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.6
22 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.7
23 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.7
24 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.7
25 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 1.0 0.8
26 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 1.0

Sig. .000
279
Component
Loadings Loadings
1 11.836 53.798 53.798 11.836 53.798 53.798 8.531 38.778 38.778
2 2.787 12.668 66.467 2.787 12.668 66.467 6.091 27.688 66.467
3 1.479 6.722 73.189
4 1.138 5.172 78.360
5 .761 3.460 81.821
6 .686 3.119 84.940
7 .550 2.502 87.441
8 .502 2.283 89.725
9 .417 1.894 91.619
10 .342 1.553 93.172
11 .249 1.131 94.302
12 .237 1.079 95.381
13 .195 .885 96.266
14 .166 .753 97.019
15 .134 .609 97.629
16 .122 .556 98.185
17 .115 .521 98.705
18 .089 .403 99.109
19 .069 .313 99.422
20 .060 .274 99.695
21 .037 .169 99.864
22 .030 .136 100.000

280
Component
1 2

Fresh water consumption .666 .054
Total of land used .627 .189

281
Communalities
Initial Extraction

Re-purposed spare parts used 1.000 .810
Remanufactured spare parts used 1.000 .827
Total of lubricants consumption 1.000 .683
Fresh water consumption 1.000 .447
Recycled water consumption 1.000 .501
Total of land used 1.000 .429
Total of energy consumption 1.000 .573
Non-renewable energy consumption 1.000 .659
Renewable energy consumption 1.000 .744
Total of bio-degradable components used 1.000 .695
Total of bio-degradable lubricants consumption 1.000 .769
Total of bio-degradable cleanser consumption 1.000 .755
Total of hazardous waste produced 1.000 .707
Total of greenhouse gas emissions 1.000 .596
Conclusion:
Based on communalities: two indicators were omitted.
- Fresh water consumption (item 12)
- Total of land used (item 14)
282
2.4 20 indicators were grouped into two perspectives
Correlation Matrix
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
1 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6
2 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5
3 0.7 0.8 1.0 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4
4 0.7 0.5 0.6 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4
5 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5
6 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.7 0.3 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.5
7 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.7 0.7 1.0 0.2 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3
13 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 1.0 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4
15 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.4 1.0 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4
16 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.4 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.6
17 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.6
18 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5
19 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.8 1.0 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.6
20 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.9 1.0 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.6
21 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.6
22 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.7
23 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.7
24 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.7
25 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 1.0 0.8
26 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 1.0

Sig. .000
283
Component
Loadings Loadings
1 11.210 56.052 56.052 11.210 56.052 56.052 7.973 39.865 39.865
2 2.673 13.363 69.416 2.673 13.363 69.416 5.910 29.551 69.416
3 1.151 5.755 75.171
4 .869 4.346 79.517
5 .741 3.707 83.224
6 .545 2.726 85.950
7 .532 2.660 88.610
8 .465 2.327 90.937
9 .361 1.803 92.741
10 .319 1.594 94.335
11 .228 1.142 95.477
12 .191 .956 96.432
13 .164 .820 97.252
14 .132 .662 97.914
15 .121 .603 98.518
16 .095 .474 98.992
17 .070 .349 99.341
18 .062 .308 99.648
19 .039 .194 99.843
20 .031 .157 100.000

284
Component
1 2


285
Communalities
Initial Extraction

Recycled water consumption 1.000 .417
Conclusion:
Based on communalities: one indicator was omitted.
- Recycled water consumption (13)
286
2.5 19 Indicators were grouped into two perspectives
Correlation Matrix
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
1 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6
2 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5
3 0.7 0.8 1.0 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4
4 0.7 0.5 0.6 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4
5 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5
6 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.5
7 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.7 0.7 1.0 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3
15 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 1.0 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4
16 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.4 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.6
17 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.6
18 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.7 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5
19 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.8 1.0 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.6
20 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.9 1.0 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.6
21 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.6
22 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.7
23 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.7
24 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.7
25 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 1.0 0.8
26 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 1.0

Sig. .000
287
Component
Loadings Loadings
1 10.857 57.143 57.143 10.857 57.143 57.143 7.623 40.122 40.122
2 2.640 13.895 71.038 2.640 13.895 71.038 5.874 30.916 71.038
3 1.151 6.057 77.095
4 .742 3.903 80.998
5 .689 3.629 84.627
6 .534 2.810 87.436
7 .518 2.728 90.165
8 .393 2.071 92.235
9 .334 1.759 93.995
10 .231 1.215 95.209
11 .191 1.006 96.215
12 .165 .867 97.082
13 .134 .703 97.785
14 .121 .635 98.420
15 .096 .505 98.926
16 .072 .379 99.305
17 .062 .324 99.629
18 .039 .205 99.834
19 .031 .166 100.000

288
Component
1 2


289
Communalities
Initial Extraction


290
3. Social Factor
Correlation Matrix
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
1 1 0.9 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
2 0.9 1 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5
3 0.9 0.9 1 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6
4 0.6 0.6 0.6 1 0.9 0.9 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5
5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.9 1 0.9 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5
6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.9 0.9 1 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5
7 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3
8 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.8 1 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4
9 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.9 1 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.4
10 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.9 1 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4
11 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 1 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4
12 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 1 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
13 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 1 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
14 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 1 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
15 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 1 0.9 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5
16 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 1 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5
17 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 1 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.5
18 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.8 1 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.6
19 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.9 1 0.6 0.6 0.6
20 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 1 0.9 0.9
21 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.9 1 0.9
22 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.9 0.9 1


Sig. .000
291
Component
Loadings Loadings
1 13.519 61.452 61.452 13.519 61.452 61.452 8.363 38.014 38.014
2 2.794 12.700 74.153 2.794 12.700 74.153 4.421 20.097 58.111
3 1.338 6.084 80.236 1.338 6.084 80.236 3.077 13.987 72.098
4 1.073 4.876 85.112 1.073 4.876 85.112 2.863 13.014 85.112
5 .804 3.654 88.766
6 .473 2.149 90.915
7 .371 1.686 92.601
8 .299 1.360 93.961
9 .217 .987 94.948
10 .168 .763 95.711
11 .162 .738 96.449
12 .134 .611 97.060
13 .124 .562 97.622
14 .106 .482 98.104
15 .089 .405 98.510
16 .084 .382 98.891
17 .064 .291 99.183
18 .055 .251 99.434
19 .045 .206 99.640
20 .036 .162 99.802
21 .028 .125 99.927
22 .016 .073 100.000

292
Component
1 2 3 4

sustainable maintenance .188 .854 .288 .115
practices
Training topics .181 .828 .323 .139
Training hours per
.209 .818 .368 .129
employee
Innovation carried out
related to sustainable .462 .686 .064 .335
maintenance
Innovation suggested .412 .681 .069 .421
Small group meetings/
.422 .651 .122 .348
team work
Lost time injury rate .836 .198 .106 .173
Recordable injury rate .829 .191 .098 .233
Safety attitude .866 .209 .134 .159
Toxic spare parts .885 .176 .149 .152
Toxic lubricants .897 .185 .131 .147
Toxic cleanser .869 .199 .186 .192
Unsafe health and safety
.827 .270 .195 .186
practices
Physical working
.833 .284 .207 .189
environment
Workplace noise level .834 .225 .195 .187
Lighting and ventilation .814 .211 .238 .218
Employee turn-over rate .361 .369 .217 .729
Employee satisfaction rate .257 .241 .307 .823
Employee complaints .314 .229 .326 .820
partnership in terms of
.246 .297 .844 .251
practices
Stakeholders satisfaction
.261 .312 .849 .225
rate
Stakeholders complaints .226 .270 .873 .253

293
Communalities
Initial Extraction

sustainable maintenance 1.000 .862
practices
Training topics 1.000 .843
Training hours per
1.000 .864
employee
related to sustainable 1.000 .801
maintenance
Innovation suggested 1.000 .816
1.000 .738
team work
Lost time injury rate 1.000 .779
Recordable injury rate 1.000 .789
Safety attitude 1.000 .837
Toxic spare parts 1.000 .860
Toxic lubricants 1.000 .877
Toxic cleanser 1.000 .865
1.000 .830
practices
Physical working
1.000 .853
environment
Workplace noise level 1.000 .820
Lighting and ventilation 1.000 .811
Employee turn-over rate 1.000 .844
Employee satisfaction rate 1.000 .896
Employee complaints 1.000 .930
1.000 .923
practices
1.000 .936
rate
Stakeholders complaints 1.000 .951

294
APPENDIX B6
Results of EFA for applicability level
1. Economic Factor
Correlation Matrix
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
1 1.0 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5
2 0.7 1.0 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4
3 0.6 0.6 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.3
4 0.6 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.3
5 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.2
6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 1.0 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3
7 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3
8 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3
9 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2
10 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 1.0 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3
11 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2
12 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.8 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2
13 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.9 1.0 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2
14 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.8 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4
15 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.3
16 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.9 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3
17 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.3
18 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.3
19 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.4
20 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.3
21 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 1.0 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5
22 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.7 1.0 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.5
23 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5
24 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5
25 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5
26 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.8 1.0 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5
27 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.7 1.0 0.8 0.5 0.5
28 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 1.0 0.6 0.4
29 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 1.0 0.9
30 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.9 1.0

Sig. .000
295
Component
Loadings Loadings
1 17.111 57.037 57.037 17.111 57.037 57.037 9.664 32.214 32.214
2 3.074 10.245 67.282 3.074 10.245 67.282 6.463 21.545 53.759
3 1.789 5.964 73.246 1.789 5.964 73.246 5.846 19.487 73.246
4 1.295 4.316 77.562
5 .762 2.539 80.101
6 .713 2.378 82.478
7 .644 2.145 84.624
8 .580 1.934 86.558
9 .492 1.639 88.197
10 .453 1.511 89.708
11 .399 1.331 91.039
12 .331 1.103 92.141
13 .283 .942 93.083
14 .261 .870 93.953
15 .235 .785 94.738
16 .219 .730 95.468
17 .181 .603 96.071
18 .161 .536 96.606
19 .154 .513 97.120
20 .144 .481 97.601
21 .133 .444 98.045
22 .105 .351 98.396
23 .096 .320 98.716
24 .089 .296 99.012
25 .078 .262 99.274
26 .071 .235 99.509
27 .056 .186 99.695
28 .037 .122 99.816
29 .031 .105 99.921
30 .024 .079 100.000

296
Component
1 2 3
Return on eco-friendly maintenance investment and innovation .484 .539 .260

Computerized maintenance management system .603 .378 .240
Manufacturing budget .772 .250 .317
Production cost/ unit .770 .211 .294
Maintenance budget .807 .184 .311
Preventive maintenance cost .774 .265 .187
Direct material cost (PM) .789 .214 .165
Direct maintenance labor cost (PM) .790 .286 .297
Overhead cost (PM) .819 .150 .268
Corrective maintenance cost .776 .197 .246
Direct material cost (CM) .828 .146 .182
Direct maintenance labor cost (CM) .843 .209 .262
Overhead cost (CM) .803 .173 .273
Maintenance cost/ unit .791 .325 .260
Overall plant effectiveness .361 .197 .807
Overall department effectiveness .335 .201 .813
Overall equipment effectiveness .354 .306 .796
Availability .428 .340 .763
Performance rate .372 .373 .767
Quality rate .378 .292 .805
Mean time between failure .231 .505 .513
Number of breakdown .119 .523 .431
Maintenance efficiency .328 .647 .395
Preventive maintenance task .321 .711 .322
Corrective maintenance task .196 .757 .357
Maintenance program achievement .282 .724 .386
Quality for maintenance task (rework) .313 .711 .226
Response time for maintenance .282 .676 .325
Start up after shutdown .139 .864 .068
Mean time to repair .119 .812 -.002

297
Communalities
Initial Extraction
Return on eco-friendly maintenance investment and innovation 1.000 .593

Computerized maintenance management system 1.000 .564
Manufacturing budget 1.000 .758
Production cost/ unit 1.000 .723
Maintenance budget 1.000 .782
Preventive maintenance cost 1.000 .705
Direct material cost (PM) 1.000 .696
Direct maintenance labor cost (PM) 1.000 .794
Overhead cost (PM) 1.000 .764
Corrective maintenance cost 1.000 .702
Direct material cost (CM) 1.000 .740
Direct maintenance labor cost (CM) 1.000 .823
Overhead cost (CM) 1.000 .750
Maintenance cost/ unit 1.000 .799
Overall plant effectiveness 1.000 .820
Overall department effectiveness 1.000 .814
Overall equipment effectiveness 1.000 .852
Availability 1.000 .881
Performance rate 1.000 .866
Quality rate 1.000 .877
Mean time between failure 1.000 .571
Number of breakdown 1.000 .474
Maintenance efficiency 1.000 .682
Preventive maintenance task 1.000 .712
Corrective maintenance task 1.000 .738
Maintenance program achievement 1.000 .752
Quality for maintenance task (rework) 1.000 .654
Response time for maintenance 1.000 .642
Start up after shutdown 1.000 .770
Mean time to repair 1.000 .674

298
2. Environmental Factor
Correlation Matrix
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
1 1 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4
2 0.7 1 0.9 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5
3 0.7 0.9 1 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.4
4 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4
5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.8 1 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.6
6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.8 0.9 1 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.6
7 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 1 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4
8 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4
9 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.5 1 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7
10 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.7 1 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6
11 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.8 0.7 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7
12 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.9 1 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.7
13 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.9 1 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.7
14 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 1 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.6
15 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.9 1 1 0.7 0.7 0.7
16 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.9 1 1 0.8 0.8 0.7
17 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 1 0.8 0.7
18 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 1 0.8
19 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 1

Sig. .000
299
Component
Loadings Loadings
1 11.509 60.575 60.575 11.509 60.575 60.575 8.445 44.446 44.446

2 2.280 12.000 72.576 2.280 12.000 72.576 5.345 28.130 72.576
3 .990 5.209 77.785
4 .801 4.215 82.000
5 .654 3.440 85.440
6 .504 2.651 88.091
7 .396 2.086 90.177
8 .362 1.906 92.083
9 .338 1.781 93.864
10 .241 1.269 95.133
11 .164 .861 95.994
12 .160 .843 96.837
13 .129 .677 97.514
14 .122 .640 98.154
15 .100 .527 98.681
16 .084 .445 99.125
17 .076 .399 99.524
18 .056 .297 99.821
19 .034 .179 100.000

300
Component
1 2


301
Communalities
Initial Extraction


302
3. Social Factor
Correlation Matrix
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
1 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5
2 0.8 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5
3 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
4 0.7 0.7 0.7 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6
5 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6
6 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7
7 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.5 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.5
8 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.9 1.0 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.6
9 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.8 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6
10 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.9 0.9 0.8 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6
11 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6
12 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6
13 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6
14 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.9 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.6
15 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.0 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6
16 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6
17 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 1.0 0.8 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.6
18 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.6
19 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.6 0.6 0.7
20 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 1.0 0.9 0.9
21 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.9 1.0 0.9
22 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.9 1.0

Sig. .000
303
Component
Loadings Loadings
1 14.288 64.944 64.944 14.288 64.944 64.944 7.313 33.239 33.239

2 2.044 9.291 74.235 2.044 9.291 74.235 4.595 20.887 54.126
3 1.254 5.700 79.935 1.254 5.700 79.935 4.207 19.121 73.248
4 1.022 4.647 84.582 1.022 4.647 84.582 2.493 11.334 84.582
5 .730 3.320 87.902
6 .467 2.121 90.023
7 .405 1.843 91.866
8 .365 1.661 93.527
9 .251 1.139 94.666
10 .224 1.019 95.685
11 .148 .675 96.359
12 .128 .582 96.941
13 .126 .575 97.516
14 .119 .539 98.055
15 .086 .391 98.446
16 .075 .342 98.788
17 .067 .303 99.091
18 .062 .283 99.374
19 .053 .242 99.616
20 .034 .154 99.770
21 .028 .128 99.897
22 .023 .103 100.000

304
Component
1 2 3 4

sustainable maintenance .246 .790 .174 .297
practices
Training topics .222 .867 .166 .263
Training hours per
.188 .876 .165 .203
employee
related to sustainable .390 .666 .471 .037
maintenance
Innovation suggested .371 .633 .511 .101
.347 .561 .589 .114
team work
Lost time injury rate .828 .218 .141 .312
Recordable injury rate .839 .197 .162 .341
Safety attitude .783 .260 .254 .245
Toxic spare parts .884 .162 .204 .277
Toxic lubricants .882 .216 .188 .235
Toxic cleanser .856 .155 .256 .216
.679 .398 .398 -.002
practices
Physical working
.635 .393 .515 -.014
environment
Workplace noise level .731 .361 .389 .049
Lighting and ventilation .648 .359 .458 .101
Employee turn-over rate .418 .250 .310 .721
Employee satisfaction rate .275 .413 .387 .651
Employee complaints .400 .303 .335 .730
.267 .223 .809 .321
practices
.240 .240 .814 .322
rate
Stakeholders complaints .326 .198 .761 .350

305
Communalities
Initial Extraction
Skill improvement related to sustainable maintenance practices 1.000 .803

Training topics 1.000 .897
Training hours per employee 1.000 .870
Innovation carried out related to sustainable maintenance 1.000 .819
Innovation suggested 1.000 .810
Small group meetings/ team work 1.000 .796
Lost time injury rate 1.000 .850
Recordable injury rate 1.000 .885
Safety attitude 1.000 .805
Toxic spare parts 1.000 .926
Toxic lubricants 1.000 .915
Toxic cleanser 1.000 .870
Unsafe health and safety practices 1.000 .777
Physical working environment 1.000 .822
Workplace noise level 1.000 .818
Lighting and ventilation 1.000 .768
Employee turn-over rate 1.000 .853
Employee satisfaction rate 1.000 .820
Employee complaints 1.000 .896
Stakeholders - company partnership in terms of sustainable maintenance
1.000 .878
practices
Stakeholders satisfaction rate 1.000 .881
Stakeholders complaints 1.000 .846

306
APPENDIX C
LIST OF PUBLICATION AND CITATION
1. Sari, E., Shaharoun, A. M., Ma’aram, A., and Yazid, A. M. (2015).

Sustainable maintenance performance measures: a pilot survey in Malaysian
automotive companies. Procedia CIRP, 26, 443-448.
Cited by 8:
- Sénéchal, O. (2017). Research directions for integrating the triple bottom
line in maintenance dashboards. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142,
331-342.
- Ighravwe, D. E., and Oke, S. A. (2016). A fuzzy-grey-weighted aggregate
sum product assessment methodical approach for multi-criteria analysis
of maintenance performance systems. International Journal of System
Assurance Engineering and Management.
- Sabbagh, O., Ab Rahman, M. N., Ismail, W. R., and Wan Hussain, W. M.
(2016). Methodology implications in automotive product–service
systems: a systematic literature review. Total Quality Management &
Business Excellence, 1-37.
- etc.
2. Sari, E., Shaharoun, A. B., and Ma'aram, A. B. (2013). Preliminary
framework of sustainable maintenance performance measurement systems for
automotive companies. Advanced Materials Research, 845, 590-595.
Cited by 1
3. Sari, E. and Shaharoun, A. M. (2012). A proposed maintenance performance
measures for manufacturing companies. Proceedings of the 13th Asia Pacific
Industrial Engineering and Management Systems Conference (APIEMS). 2 –
5 December. Phuket, Thailand: Asian Institute of Technology, 2064-2070.
307
APPENDIX D
BASIC DEFINITION
Term Definition
Sustainable The SMM is defined as all required processes for ensuring the acceptable assets
Maintenance condition by eliminating negative environmental impact, prudent in using resources,
Management concern for the safety of employees and stakeholders, while at the same time
(SMM) economically sound (Sari et al., 2015).
Green The execution of maintenance management which focused more on environmental
maintenance aspect (Ajukumar and Ghandi, 2013).
management
Framework A conceptual framework explains, either graphically or in narrative form the main
things to be studied the key factors, constructs or variables and the presumed
relationships among them. Frameworks assist in the holistic process by clarifying
boundaries, specifying dimensions or views and may also provide initial intuitions
about relationships among the dimensions. They should not be treated as models,
but they form a good starting point for model building as part of theory development
(Rouse and Putterill, 2003; Parida, 2006).
Performance Performance is the ability of an organization to implement a chosen strategy (Parida,
2006).
Performance This term refers to three pillar of sustainability namely economic, environmental,
factor and social in examining SMP (Liyanage et al., 2003).
Performance The particular point of views in examining performance. This reveals that
perspective performance includes practically everything that describes, or is behind, the success
of an organization (Parida, 2006).
Performance This term refers to any indicator measuring the performance of a business process,
indicator work team, individual, piece of equipment or plant in terms of its ability to meet its
desired levels of performance (Mather, 2005).

2017 Maintenance Performance Automotive Industry PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2017 Maintenance Performance Automotive Industry PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2017 Maintenance Performance Automotive Industry PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SUSTAINABLE MAINTENANCE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM

FOR AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the

Faculty of Mechanical Engineering

To my beloved husband, mother, father, and two wonderful children.

I would like to express my sincere appreciation and deep gratitude to my

I am really thankful to Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) for funding my

I owe my deepest gratitude to my lovely husband, H. Ridha Satria, ST. who

I am heartily thankful to both my best friends in BATC of UTMKL, uni Elita

This study is motivated to embed sustainability issues for maintenance

Kajian ini adalah bermotivasi untuk menerapkan isu kemampanan untuk

CHAPTER TITLE PAGE

2.4 Maintenance Objectives in Manufacturing

3.3.5 Data Collection 72

4 SURVEY RESULTS AND ANALYSIS 94

4.5.4 Rotated Factor Matrix Results (Applicability

7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

TABLE NO. TITLE PAGE

2.13 List of preliminary SMP measures for automotive

4.5 The summary of EFA processes and results

4.26 Operational Definition of SMP Indicators with Respect

FIGURE NO. TITLE PAGE

2.15 Framework for world-class maintenance system

4.8 Number of years of implementing maintenance

5.15 Relative importance weights of SMP indicators on

AASA - The association of academies of sciences in Asia

PPE - Personal protective equipment

APPENDIX TITLE PAGE

1.1 Background of Research

The use of advanced technology in the manufacturing companies has made

However, in the twentieth century the maintenance function has grown to be

Previous studies revealed that maintenance management has a positive

manufacturing company’s profitability because it may contribute between 2 to 10

A number of studies also revealed that there are effects of maintenance

Pintelon and Muchiri (2009) argued that maintenance management systems

The value added created by maintenance management needs to be planned,

maintenance performance measures (financial-based) and concentrated at the

The Balanced Scorecard (BSC) is a popular approach for measuring

Liyanage (2007) suggested that it is essential to integrate sustainability issues

According to Alsyouf (2006), sustainable maintenance is a crucial

industry. The automotive industry has contributed to economic and social

The Malaysian automotive industry is one of the important and strategic

According to the Association of Academies of Sciences in Asia (AASA)

MITI (2014) has declared the objectives of newest National Automotive

In order to respond to these issues, Malaysian automotive companies need to

1.2 Problem Statement

Today, maintenance management is considered as a crucial support function

Recently, automotive industry as a capital-intensive manufacturing

The other main issue in developing MPM framework is the alignment

Hence, there is a need to assess the application of sustainable maintenance

1.3 Research Questions

The research questions are as follows:

1.4 Research Objectives

The research objectives are as follows:

iii. To identify the critical measures in achieving company objectives that

1.5 Research Scopes

The scopes of this study are limited to the following:

1.6 Significance of the Research

Murthy et al. (2002) highlighted that maintenance management of assets and