Maintenance strategies: Decision Making Grid vs Jack-Knife Diagram
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Maintenance management is a vital strategic task given the increasing demand on sustained availability of machines. Machine performance depends primarily on frequency and downtime; therefore, ranking critical machines based on these two criteria is important to determine the appropriate maintenance strategy. The purpose of this paper is to compare two methods, using case studies, to allocate maintenance strategies while prioritising performance based on frequency and downtime or Mean Time to Repair: the Decision Making Grid (DMG) and Jack-Knife Diagram (JKD). Design/methodology/approach The literature indicates the need for an approach able to integrate maintenance performance and strategy in order to adapt existing data on equipment failures and to routinely adjust preventive measures. Maintenance strategies are incomparable; one strategy should not be applied to all machines, nor all strategies to the same machine. Findings Compared to the Pareto histogram, the DMG and JKD provide visual representations of the performance of the worst machines with respect to frequency and downtime, thus allowing maintenance technicians to apply the appropriate maintenance strategy. Each method has its own merits. Research limitations/implications This work compares only two methods based on their original conceptualisation. This is due to their similarities in using same input data and their main features. However, there is a scope to compare to other methods or variations of these methods. Practical implications This paper highlights how the DMG and JKD can be incorporated in industrial applications to allocate appropriate maintenance strategy and track machine performance over time. Originality/value Neither DMG nor JKD have been compared in the literature. Currently, the JKD has been used to rank machines, and the DMG has been used to determine maintenance strategies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".