Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Student, Management and Industrial Engineering Malek Ashtar University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

2 Associate Professor, Management and Industrial Engineering, Malek Ashtar University of Technology,Tehran, Iran

3 Assistant Professor, Management and Industrial Engineering Malek Ashtar University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

This study aims to enhance the performance of maintenance teams by proposing a mathematical programming model for team formation, focusing on the maximization of knowledge sharing. In this model, key factors influencing knowledge sharing — including knowledge absorptive capacity, knowledge-sharing capability, willingness to share knowledge, and motivation to acquire knowledge — along with the required expertise for maintenance activities, are identified and incorporated into the optimization process. The data used to develop the model were collected through performance evaluation questionnaires and expert interviews. The implementation of the proposed model in an organization with extensive physical assets demonstrates that optimizing team formation leads to significant improvements in maintenance key performance indicators. The findings of this study indicate that knowledge sharing not only improves individual and team skills but also plays a key role in improving the performance of maintenance teams. The proposed model can be used as an efficient decision-making tool for maintenance.
Introduction
In today's competitive environment, organizations are constantly exploring innovative approaches to enhance their productivity and performance. One of the key areas that plays a critical role in achieving this goal is industrial maintenance. Effective performance in this domain can have a direct impact on reducing costs, extending the lifespan of equipment, and improving organizational reliability (Okirie, 2024). Consequently, the use of innovative approaches for more efficient management of maintenance activities has gained significant importance.
One of the main challenges in maintenance management is the formation of optimal work teams that can efficiently carry out their assigned tasks. Teams composed of knowledgeable and skilled individuals not only enhance the quality of task execution but can also foster problem-solving and innovation through collaborative knowledge sharing (Alharbi & Aloud, 2024). This is particularly crucial in asset-intensive industries.
The process of team formation can vary depending on factors such as individual characteristics, task types, and organizational context. One of the key elements in effectively guiding team formation is the willingness and ability of members to share knowledge (Stavrou et al., 2023). Knowledge sharing among team members facilitates the transfer of experiences and critical information, which improves skills and helps prevent the repetition of past mistakes. This process transforms tacit knowledge into collective assets and supports informed decision-making. Institutionalizing a culture of knowledge sharing not only enhances collaboration and innovation but also increases organizational resilience to environmental changes, thereby laying the foundation for sustainability and competitive advantage (Hamill, 2025).
However, many organizations face challenges in identifying and leveraging their organizational knowledge capacities (Zamiri & Esmaeili, 2024). This study presents a model for forming optimal maintenance work teams with the goal of maximizing knowledge sharing. While maintenance tasks are often performed based solely on job roles, with less emphasis on team formation according to the specific issue at hand, this research integrates knowledge management concepts with optimization principles to offer an operational and quantitative model for improving the performance of technical maintenance teams.
In this regard, the factors affecting knowledge sharing and the required expertise for performing maintenance activities have been identified using data collected from performance evaluation questionnaires and expert interviews. The identification process utilizes the Motivation-Opportunity-Ability (MOA) framework as its theoretical foundation, enabling a deeper analysis of the factors influencing knowledge sharing within work teams. The questionnaires designed based on this model assess team members' motivation to share knowledge, their technical and communication capabilities, and the existing opportunities for knowledge sharing. This information helps managers identify team strengths and weaknesses and adopt a data-driven approach to decision-making.
The proposed model in this study employs mathematical programming. The implementation of this model in an organization has shown that forming optimal work teams leads to significant improvements in key performance indicators, such as average repair time and equipment availability (Rahman et al., 2022). The findings of this research highlight that knowledge sharing can serve as a fundamental driver for enhancing the performance of maintenance teams. This study represents an important step in redefining the role of team formation in the efficiency of maintenance processes.
Methods
This study adopts a quantitative approach to optimize the formation of maintenance teams. In the first phase, a nonlinear integer programming model is developed to maximize knowledge sharing among team members while considering the assumptions and constraints relevant to equipment maintenance. To evaluate the model's performance, it is applied within an asset-intensive industry. Required data were collected via expert interviews, as well as performance evaluation questionnaires. Following data collection and parameter calculation, an industry-specific mathematical model was formulated. The model was solved using the branch-and-bound method implemented in MATLAB software. As a result, the most suitable maintenance teams for carrying out designated activities were proposed. Finally, the performance of the formed teams was assessed using key indicators such as mean time to repair (MTTR) and equipment availability. This evaluation was conducted over six-month intervals using a Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS).
Discussion and results
To illustrate the proposed model, a case study was conducted for forming maintenance teams for floating equipment. The selected equipment and the corresponding maintenance activities were recommended by industry experts. Based on these recommendations, key indicators — including technical expertise of maintenance personnel and Motivation-Opportunity-Ability parameters — were evaluated using a 360-degree assessment method. This was carried out through questionnaires employing a five-point Likert scale and distributed among individuals (self-assessment), managers (top-down assessment), and peers. Additionally, the required expertise levels for each maintenance task, as well as the opportunities for knowledge sharing and absorption, were identified through expert surveys. The collected data on individuals’ expertise were then normalized based on the maximum level of expertise needed for the maintenance tasks.
Finally, to assess the impact of the implemented policies on equipment performance, two key indicators were analyzed: Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF), representing equipment reliability, and Mean Time to Repair (MTTR), reflecting the skill level of maintenance personnel. These indicators were monitored over a six-month period prior to implementation and three subsequent six-month intervals post-implementation. Simultaneous improvement in both indicators suggests that maintenance activities were conducted with greater speed and higher quality.
Conclusion
The findings of this study underscore the critical role of knowledge sharing in enhancing the performance of maintenance teams. The proposed optimization model demonstrated that forming optimal work teams can effectively reduce repair time, manage maintenance costs, and improve key performance indicators. Based on these results, several practical measures can be implemented to enhance maintenance performance through effective knowledge sharing and optimal team formation. First, organizations are encouraged to adopt a performance evaluation system grounded in the Motivation–Opportunity–Ability (MOA) framework to better assess and develop individual and team capabilities. In parallel, targeted incentive schemes should be designed to actively promote knowledge sharing among team members. Additionally, establishing structured and interactive platforms within maintenance processes can facilitate communication and collaboration. Strategic investment in training programs aimed at improving both technical and team-based skills is also essential. Finally, ongoing monitoring of team performance and the use of data-driven decision-making can ensure continuous improvement and alignment with organizational goals. Collectively, these actions provide a comprehensive approach to enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of maintenance operations

Keywords

Main Subjects

  1. Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS quarterly, 107–136. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.2307/‌3250961
  2. Alharbi, G. L., & Aloud, M. E. (2024). The effects of knowledge management processes on service sector performance: evidence from Saudi Arabia. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11(1), 1–19. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1057/‌s41599-024-02876-y
  3. Babayeju, O. A., Adefemi, A., Ekemezie, I. O., & Sofoluwe, O. O. (2024). Advancements in predictive maintenance for aging oil and gas infrastructure. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 22(3), 252–266. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.30574/‌wjarr.2024.22.3.1669
  4. Basten, D., & Haamann, T. (2018). Approaches for organizational learning: A literature review Sage Open, 8(3), 2158244018794224. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1177/‌2158244018794224
  5. Behrend, F. D., & Erwee, R. (2009). Mapping knowledge flows in virtual teams with SNA. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(4), 99–114. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1108/‌13673270910971860
  6. Borgatti, S. P., & Halgin, D. S. (2011). On network theory. organization science. Articles in Advance, 1–14. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1287/‌orsc.1100.0641
  7. Camisón, C., & Forés, B. (2010). Knowledge absorptive capacity: New insights for its conceptualization and measurement. Journal of business research, 63(7), 707–715. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1016/‌j.jbusres.2009.04.022
  8. Cao, S., Pan, Y., Biesiada, M., Godlowski, W., & Zhu, Z.-H. (2012). Constraints on cosmological models from strong gravitational lensing systems. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2012(03). https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1088/‌1475-7516/‌2012/‌03/‌016
  9. Carmeli, A., Atwater, L., & Levi, A. (2011). How leadership enhances employees’ knowledge sharing: the intervening roles of relational and organizational identification. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 36, 257–274. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1007/‌s10961-010-9154-y
  10. Chiang, H. Y., & Lin, B. M. (2020). A decision model for human resource allocation in project management of software development. IEEE access, 8, 38073–38081. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1109/‌ACCESS.2020.2975829
  11. Costa, A., Ramos, F., Perkusich, M., Dantas, E., Dilorenzo, E., Chagas, F., Meireles, A., Albuquerque, D., Silva, L., & Almeida, H. (2020). Team formation in software engineering: a systematic mapping study. IEEE access, 8, 145687–145712. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1109/‌ACCESS.2020.3015017
  12. De Jonge, B., & Scarf, P. A. (2020). A review on maintenance optimization. European journal of operational research, 285(3), 805–824. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1016/‌j.ejor.2019.09.047
  13. Do, P., Vu, H. C., Barros, A., & Bérenguer, C. (2015). Maintenance grouping for multi-component systems with availability constraints and limited maintenance teams. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 142, 56–67. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1016/‌j.ress.2015.04.022
  14. Dreyfus, H., & Dreyfus, S. E. (1988). Mind over Machine: A Plea for the Intuitive Conception of Mind. Educational Researcher. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.3102/‌0013189X017003050
  15. Ganesh Shankar, G. (2024). Artificial intelligence for predictive maintenance in oil and gas operations. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 23(3), 1228–1233. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.30574/‌wjarr.2024.23.3.2721
  16. Hackman, J. (2002). Leading teams: Setting the stage for great performances. Harvard Business School Publicshing Corporation. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1109/‌EMR.2003.1201449
  17. Hamill, G. (2025). A Literature Review: Exploring the Influence of Trust on Knowledge Sharing in Project Teams within Project-based Organisations. DBS Applied Research and Theory Journal, 2. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.22375/‌dbs.v2i1.137
  18. Hansen, M. T. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative science quarterly, 44(1), 82–111. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.2307/‌2667032
  19. Hosseini, S. M., & Akhavan, P. (2017). A model for project team formation in complex engineering projects under uncertainty: a knowledge-sharing approach. Kybernetes, 46(7), 1131–1157. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1108/‌K-06-2015-0150
  20. Juárez, J., Santos, C., & Brizuela, C. A. (2021). A comprehensive review and a taxonomy proposal of team formation problems. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 54(7), 1–33. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1145/‌3465399
  21. Kumar, U., Galar, D., Parida, A., Stenström, C., & Berges, L. (2013). Maintenance performance metrics: a state of the art review. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, 19(3), 233–277. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1108/‌JQME-05-2013-0029
  22. Lee, P. K., To, W. M., & Billy, T. (2013). Team attributes and performance of operational service teams: An empirical taxonomy development. International Journal of Production Economics, 142(1), 51–60. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1016/‌j.ijpe.2012.05.005
  23. Lee, W. J., Wu, H., Yun, H., Kim, H., Jun, M. B., & Sutherland, J. W. (2019). Predictive maintenance of machine tool systems using artificial intelligence techniques applied to machine condition data. Procedia Cirp, 80, 506–511. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1016/‌j.procir.2018.12.019
  24. Longo, F., Nicoletti, L., & Padovano, A. (2019). Ubiquitous knowledge empowers the Smart Factory: The impacts of a Service-oriented Digital Twin on enterprises' performance. Annual Reviews in Control, 47, 221–236. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1016/‌j.arcontrol.2019.01.001
  25. Lyutskanova, G. (2024). Systematic Literature Review on the Team Formation Problem. Journal of Information Technologies, 17(3), 175–188. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.17671/‌gazibtd.1414527
  26. Malik, R., Rauf, N., Alisyahbana, T., Ahmad, A., & Fole, A. (2024). Scheduling Maintenance Proposal for Turbine Machines Using The Age Replacement Method at Balambano Hydroelectric Power Plant PT. Vale Indonesia Tbk. Journal of Industrial Engineering Management, 9(1), 69–76. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.33536/‌jiem.v9i1.1841
  27. Miranda, P. B., Mello, R. F., & Nascimento, A. C. (2020). A multi-objective optimization approach for the group formation problem. Expert Systems with Applications, 162, 113828. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1016/‌j.eswa.2020.113828
  28. Munir, Y., Umer, Q., Faheem, M., Akram, S., & Jaffar, A. (2025). Developer Recommendation and Team Formation in Collaborative Crowdsourcing Platforms. IEEE access. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1109/‌ACCESS.2025.3558557
  29. Muniz, M., & Flamand, T. (2024). A column generation approach for the team formation problem. Computers & Operations Research, 161. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1016/‌j.cor.2023.106406
  30. Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (2007). The knowledge-creating company. Harvard business review, 85(7/‌8), 162. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1016/‌b978-0-7506-7009-8.50016-1
  31. Okirie, A. J. (2024). Maintenance Efficiency Optimization through Effective Leadership and Emotional Intelligence. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Applied Science, 9(6), 147–156. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.51584/‌IJRIAS.2024.906013
  32. Peuker, S., & Hill, A. (2024). A novel approach to purposeful team formation. 2024 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition,
  33. Pinciroli, L., Baraldi, P., & Zio, E. (2023). Maintenance optimization in industry 4.0. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 234, 109204. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1016/‌j.ress.2023.109204
  34. Rahman, F., Sugiono, S., Sonief, A. A. a., & Novareza, O. (2022). Optimization maintenance performance level through collaboration of overall equipment effectiveness and machine reliability. Journal of Applied Engineering Science, 20(3), 917–936. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.5937/‌jaes0-35189
  35. Ramos-Villagrasa, P. J., Barrada, J. R., Fernández-del-Río, E., & Koopmans, L. (2019). Assessing job performance using brief self-report scales: The case of the individual work performance questionnaire. Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones, 35(3), 195–205. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.5093/‌jwop2019a21
  36. Raposo, H., Farinha, J. T., Pais, E., & Galar, D. (2021). An integrated model for dimensioning the reserve fleet based on the maintenance policy. WSEAS Trans. Syst. Control, 16, 43–65. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.37394/‌23203.2021.16.3
  37. Reslan, M., Hastings, E. M., Brundage, M. P., & Sexton, T. (2021). A data-driven framework for team formation for maintenance tasks. International Journal of Prognostics and Health Management, 12(1). https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.36001/‌ijphm.2021.v12i1.2930
  38. Shah, A., Ganesan, R., Jajodia, S., Cam, H., & Hutchinson, S. (2023). A novel team formation framework based on performance in a cybersecurity operations center. IEEE Transactions on Services Computing, 16(4), 2359–2371. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1109/‌TSC.2023.3253307
  39. Siemsen, E., Roth, A. V., & Balasubramanian, S. (2008). How motivation, opportunity, and ability drive knowledge sharing: The constraining-factor model. Journal of Operations Management, 26(3), 426–445. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1016/‌j.jom.2007.09.001
  40. Stavrou, G., Adamidis, P., Papathanasiou, J., & Tarabanis, K. (2023). Team Formation: A Systematic Literature Review. International Journal of Business Science and Applied Management. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.69864/‌ijbsam.18-2.174
  41. Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. International journal of medical education, 2, 53. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.5116/‌ijme.4dfb.8dfd
  42. Wasko, M. M., & Faraj, S. (2005). Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. MIS quarterly, 35–57. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.2307/‌25148667
  43. Zamiri, M., & Esmaeili, A. (2024). Methods and technologies for supporting knowledge sharing within learning communities: A systematic literature review. Administrative Sciences, 14(1), 17. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.3390/‌admsci14010017
  44. Zheng, Z., Xie, S., Dai, H.-N., Chen, X., & Wang, H. (2018). Blockchain challenges and opportunities: A survey. International journal of web and grid services, 14(4), 352–375. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1504/‌IJWGS.2018.095647