Selection of maintenance actions using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP): decision-making in railway infrastructure

A methodology for prioritising between different maintenance actions in the railway infrastructure is presented. The consistency of the prioritisation and the feasibility of the applied methodology are investigated. Criteria describing the diverse effects of maintenance are developed and presented to track managers, together with a set of maintenance actions that are specific for each track manager. Then, the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) is used to obtain preferences for the criteria and for the different actions. The track managers roughly agree on the prioritisation of criteria. However, the discrepancies between the results of the two ways employed to elicit the preferences for the actions are rather large. The track managers consider it easy to understand the rationale of the AHP and to enter their preferences. It is proposed that preferences are recorded as they are in this paper, in order to document the rationale of the decisions and to facilitate mutual learning among decision-makers and over time.

[1]  Thomas L. Saaty,et al.  Multicriteria Decision Making: The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation , 1990 .

[2]  T. Saaty Fundamentals of Decision Making and Priority Theory With the Analytic Hierarchy Process , 2000 .

[3]  R. Kaplan,et al.  The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action , 1996 .

[4]  A. Tversky Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. , 1972 .

[5]  Sushil Kumar,et al.  Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications , 2006, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[6]  Ronald F Hagquist HIGH-PRECISION PRIORITIZATION USING ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS: DETERMINING STATE HPMS COMPONENT WEIGHTING FACTORS , 1994 .

[7]  Salih O. Duffuaa,et al.  The use of an analytical hierarchy process in pavement maintenance priority ranking , 1999 .

[8]  A. Tversky,et al.  The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. , 1981, Science.

[9]  W. Edwards Deming,et al.  The New Economics for Industry, Government, Education , 2018 .

[10]  Evangelos Triantaphyllou,et al.  Multi-criteria Decision Making Methods: A Comparative Study , 2000 .

[11]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect Theory : An Analysis of Decision under Risk Author ( s ) : , 2007 .

[12]  Kirti Peniwati,et al.  Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the analytic hierarchy process , 1998, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[13]  Maurizio Bevilacqua,et al.  A combined goal programming - AHP approach to maintenance selection problem , 2006, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[14]  A. Tversky,et al.  Anomalies: Preference Reversals , 1990 .

[15]  W. A. Shewhart,et al.  Statistical method from the viewpoint of quality control , 1939 .

[16]  D. M. Karydas,et al.  A method for the efficient prioritization of infrastructure renewal projects , 2006, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[17]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: analysis of decision under risk , 1979 .

[18]  Dirk Heeremans,et al.  Strategic investment decisions , 1994 .

[19]  P. Slovic,et al.  Reversals of preference between bids and choices in gambling decisions. , 1971 .

[20]  Ashraf Labib,et al.  Learning from failures: Design improvements using a multiple criteria decision-making process , 2003 .

[21]  J. Schmee Applied Statistics—A Handbook of Techniques , 1984 .