Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Systems Engineering in Context pp 291–301Cite as

Optimizing Fleet Life Cycle Management Decisions Through Graphical Dominance Analysis

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

  • 745 Accesses

Abstract

Australia’s national naval enterprise recognizes the need to implement the best practices of asset management to better manage its fleet across the life cycle. Asset management, applied to the Australian naval fleet, depends on the concurrent achievement of availability, capability, and affordability and the degree to which these can be simultaneously achieved. Decision support and decision-making criteria are key components to any asset management system but often lack any stable structure or uniform method of establishing business rules for making decisions within an enterprise construct. Mixing triangles have been successfully used as decision support mechanisms in assessing and supporting life cycle management activities and can be applied to a fleet life cycle management concept as a means of facilitating graphical dominance analysis to support not only asset management specialists but also decision-makers and interested stakeholders in Australia’s naval enterprise. Analytical methods can prescribe weighting criteria for supporting good decisions that adhere to asset management practices and principles. Preference areas based on dominance factors limit the weighting criteria assigned to high-level fleet life cycle objectives to ensure asset-related decisions are optimized, regardless of the situation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Abbreviations

AMS:

Asset management system

DF:

Dominance factor

FLCM:

Fleet life cycle management

FLCO:

Fleet life cycle objective

GDA:

Graphical dominance analysis

LID:

Line of increasing dominance

PEW:

Point of equal weighting

PoD:

Point of dominance

RAN:

Royal Australian Navy

SRI:

Stakeholder region of interest

WC:

Weighting criteria

References

  1. Barrett, T. (2017). The navy and the nation. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Laird, R. (2017). Rear Admiral Jonathan Mead focuses on the way ahead for the Royal Australian Navy. In Second Line of Defence: Delivering Capabilities to the Warfighter. Retrieved October 11, 2017, from http://www.sldinfo.com/rear-admiral-jonathan-mead-focuses-on-the-way-ahead-for-the-royal-australian-navy/

  3. Lemerande, T. J. (2017). Life cycle management applied to major fleet units. In Defence Assets Lead Speaker presentation at 12th Annual World Congress on Engineering Asset Management. Brisbane, 4 August 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Lemerande, T. J. (2017). Fleet life cycle management: Applying asset management to sustain a multi-class submarine Fleet. In Proceedings of the submarine science technology and engineering conference Adelaide, 5–7 November 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Azapagic, A., & Clift, R. (1999). The application of life cycle assessment to process optimisation. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 23(10), 1509–1526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Lemerande, T. J. (2017). Optimising availability, capability, and affordability across the fleet: A total life cycle management approach for improving seaworthiness. In e-Proceedings of World Congress on Engineering Asset Management (WCEAM), Brisbane, 2–4 August 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Chen, H., & Boutros, P. C. (2011). Venn diagram: A package for the generation of highly-customizable Venn and Euler diagrams in R. BMC Bioinformatics, 12(1), 35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Wagner, D. H., & Mylander, W. C. (Eds.). (1999). Naval operations analysis. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Porter, G. H., Conley, K. M., Gordon, C. V., Kneece Jr., R. R., Rieksts, B. Q., Shaw, A. H., et al. (2015). Affordability of defense acquisition programs (No. IDA-PAPER-P-5243-REDACTED). Alexandria, VA: Institute for Defense Analyses.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Capability Development Group. (2014). Defence capability development handbook. Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Barrett, T. (2015). Speech to Industry Leaders’ Luncheon. In Royal Australian Navy Sea Power Conference, 7 October 2015. Retrieved from http://www.navy.gov.au/media-room/publications/chief-navy-speeches

  12. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineering. (2000). The authoritative dictionary of IEEE standard terms (7th ed.). New York: Standards Information Network IEEE Press.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Barrett, T. (2015). Chief of Navy speech to Naval Warfare Officers Association, 30 October 2015 http://www.navy.gov.au/media-room/publications/chief-navy-speeches

  14. Commonwealth of Australia. (2010). Australian Maritime Doctrine: RAN Doctrine 1–2010. Canberra, ACT: Sea Power Centre.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Hofstetter, P., Braunschweig, A., Mettier, T., Müller-Wenk, R., & Tietje, O. (1999). The mixing triangle: Correlation and graphical decision support for LCA-based comparisons. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 3(4), 97–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Finkbeiner, M., Schau, E. M., Lehmann, A., & Traverso, M. (2010). Towards life cycle sustainability assessment. Sustainability, 2(10), 3309–3322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. See Pre’s web site at https://www.pre-sustainability.com/triangle-tool

  18. Hofstetter, P. (1998). Perspectives in life cycle impact assessment: A structure approach to combine models of the technosphere, ecosphere and valuesphere. New York: Springer Science + Business Media LLC.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  19. Standards Australia. (2014). Asset management – Overview, principles and terminology (AS ISO 55000: 2014). Sydney: Council of Standards Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Standards Australia. (2014). Asset management – Management systems – Guidelines for the application of ISO 55001 (AS ISO 55002: 2014). Sydney: Council of Standards Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Standards Australia. (2014). Asset Management – Management systems – Requirements (AS ISO 55001: 2014). Sydney: Council of Standards Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Thomas, E., Levrat, E., & Iung, B. (2008). Maintenance decision making tool reaching a compromise between maintainability and reliability performances. In 17th IFAC World Congress, Jul 2008, Seoul, South Korea. pp. 907–912.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Brownley, C. W. (2013). Multi-objective decision analysis: Managing trade-offs and uncertainty. New York: Business Expert Press.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Blanchard, B. S., & Fabrycky, W. J. (2005). Systems engineering and analysis (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Azapagic, A. (1999). Life cycle assessment and its application to process selection, design and optimisation. Chemical Engineering Journal, 73(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Seppälä, J., Basson, L., & Norris, G. A. (2001). Decision analysis frameworks for life-cycle impact assessment. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 5(4), 45–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Teah, H. Y., Fukushima, Y., & Onuki, M. (2015). Experiential knowledge complements an LCA-based decision support framework. Sustainability, 7(9), 12386–12401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Finnveden, G., Hauschild, M. Z., Ekvall, T., Guinée, J., Heijungs, R., Hellweg, S., et al. (2009). Recent developments in life cycle assessment. Journal of Environmental Management, 91(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Engineering, University of South Australia, Mawson Lakes, SA, Australia

    Tobias Lemerande

Authors
  1. Tobias Lemerande
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tobias Lemerande .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Systems and Information Engineering, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA

    Stephen Adams

  2. Department of Systems and Information Engineering, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA

    Peter A. Beling

  3. Department of Systems and Information Engineering, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA

    James H. Lambert

  4. Department of Systems and Information Engineering, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA

    William T. Scherer

  5. Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA

    Cody H. Fleming

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Lemerande, T. (2019). Optimizing Fleet Life Cycle Management Decisions Through Graphical Dominance Analysis. In: Adams, S., Beling, P., Lambert, J., Scherer, W., Fleming, C. (eds) Systems Engineering in Context. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00114-8_24

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation