PAL-VMEA: A Novel Method for Enhancing Decision-Making Consistency in Maintenance Management

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The presented paper that is focused on a novel method for enhancing decision fills all the attributes of the scientific paper. I suggest publishing it in this form.

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the reviewer for the kind comment and for the time spent reading our work.

Reviewer 2 Report

This was a very well-written manuscript, which focused primarily on the BWM method combined with the VMEA method with the inclusion of a mechanism for assessing the epistemic uncertainty inherent in knowledge-based methods.
By combining the PAL with the VMEA, the authors seek to make the valuation of the weights associated with the VMEA more robust and thereby allow more accurate decisions for the maintainers who apply the method in their systems. However, seeking to consider the individual experience of each evaluator in the final result, BWM was also combined with PAL-VMEA, making the proposed method even more robust.
To demonstrate the application of the method, a Kaplan hydrogenerator was considered as an example case, being subdivided into three large systems that, in turn, were subdivided in sub-systems, totaling 10 sub-systems.
I found methodology very interesting and very well explained. The research design is appropriate. The title of the paper reflects its content.

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the reviewer for the kind comment and for the time spent reading our work.

Reviewer 3 Report

Very interesting and well written paper. Is necessary a deep analysis about the innovation of the proposal and it must be highlighted. Is not easy as reviewer find the contribution since there is a long description and analysis is different techniques and methods. The abstract, the proposed methodology and the concluding remarks must express clearly the innovation and the key findings of the research activity. The application case is well explained and is relevant, but is not sufficient to measure the real contribution of the proposal.

Author Response

Firstly, the authors would like to thank the reviewer suggestions. We are sure that the implementation of such suggestions has contributed to the improvement of the quality of the text. In the following, the changes made in the text, according to each reviewer suggestion, are highlighted:

• Is necessary a deep analysis about the innovation of the proposal and it must be highlighted. Is not easy as reviewer find the contribution since there is a long description and analysis is different techniques and methods. The abstract, the proposed methodology and the concluding remarks must express clearly the innovation and the key findings of the research activity. The application case is well explained and is relevant, but is not sufficient to measure the real contribution of the proposal.

Updates were made to the text in order to highlight the proposed innovation, which is the combination of PAL and VMEA techniques. It is worth mentioning that this novel method allows to mitigate the epistemic uncertainty present in the implementation of VMEA. The combination of PAL and VMEA aims to make the obtained VRPN values more robust and reliable. Once the proposed method is fully applied, the main resulting indexes of the analysis, i.e., the VRPN values, will direct the attention of analysts and maintainers to areas where reasonably predicted variations may be harmful. From these results, therefore, a design or maintenance strategy that seeks to prioritize actions that minimize or eliminate the causes of the observed variations can be formulated, facilitating the subsequent efforts to obtain a more robust and reliable system.

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors present a very interesting paper that allows dealing with epistemic uncertainty and thus help the decision making process regarding maintenance activities.

The proposed method is often applied in other areas as the quality in project development and testing and not for maintenance planning purposes.

The author should verify the placement of the references inside the text and along the document. For example, instead of:

“…those critical scenarios. [4,5] Coupled to these…”

It should be written:

“…those critical scenarios [4,5]. Coupled to these…”

Please clarify if the sum of the percentages in Figure 1 is correct. I think it should represent a total of 100%.

In Table 2 “Weigh” should be replaced by “Weight”.

The VMEA form presented in Table 2 is not very clear. Please explain how to achieve the VRPN (Sub-KCP).

What is represented by “6,36” in line 391 of page 12? Is this some mistake? Are these references?

Why is different the symbol of the Paracomplete Logical State in Figure 4 and the corresponding symbol in Table 6?

I think there is an error in line 436 of page14 when referring “eleven KPC’s”. I think the correct is “ten KPC’s”.

It should be referred if it possible to have more than 4 experts and how it affects the complexity of the method proposed.

It should be explained how and who define the necessary knowledge presented for example in Table 8. It brings some subjectivity to the method?

Please, see if the representation of F3, F4, F5, F6, F7 and F8 is correct in Figure 7. I think that are some mistakes and where it is:

F3 should be F6

F4 should be F7

F5 should be F8

Am I correct?

Please clarify in Table 14 how the weights of Sub-KCP, the size of variation in NF and Sensitivity of Sub-KCP to NF are achieved.

Regarding my comment on the placement of F3, F4, F5, F6, F7 and F8 in Figure 7, please verify the “Results and Discussion” section, fundamentally the last 6 points (bullets).

I think it is missing perhaps a paragraph referring the link to maintenance planning based on the results achieved on the application of such method. Furthers steps for decision making, interpretation of the VRPN’s achieved and refer how to include an economic analysis into tis method.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx