نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 گروه مدیریت کسب‌وکار، دانشکده علوم مالی، مدیریت و کارآفرینی، دانشگاه کاشان، کاشان، ایران.

2 گروه مهندسی صنایع، دانشکده مهندسی، دانشگاه کاشان، کاشان، ایران.

چکیده

نگهداری و تعمیرات از اقلام اصلی هزینه‌های صنایع نفت و گاز و یک عامل مهم در حفظ توان تولید آن‌ها و جلوگیری از سوانح و هزینه‌های ناشی از خسارات پیش‌بینی‌نشده به شمار می‌رود. توسعه این بخش به‌وسیله فناوری‌های نسل 4.0 صنعت، به رقم مزایای موجود با کندی روبروست که این امر مبین لزوم شناسایی عوامل کلیدی موفقیت نگهداری و تعمیرات نسل ۴.۰ صنایع نفت و گاز و تحلیل این عوامل به‌منظور رفع محدودیت‌های موجود است. این پژوهش در 2 بخش کیفی (با هدف شناسایی عوامل کلیدی موفقیت) و کمی ( با هدف مدل‌سازی و تحلیل سناریو) انجام شده است. شیوه تجزیه‌وتحلیل در بخش اول تحلیل مضمون و در بخش دوم استفاده از روش‌های دیمتل و نقشه شناختی فازی است. یافته‌ها بیانگر 58 کد اولیه است که در قالب 15 عامل کلیدی دسته‌بندی شده‌اند. تحلیل سناریوهای رو به عقب بیانگر اهمیت «اتصال و یکپارچگی سیستم‌ها» و «پایش وضعیت تجهیزات هوشمند» و تحلیل سناریوهای روبه‌جلو بیانگر اهمیت «اتصال و یکپارچگی سیستم‌ها»، «سرمایه‌گذاری» و «پایش وضعیت تجهیزات هوشمند» است. لذا هم‌افزایی عوامل فنی (جمع‌آوری، انتقال و ذخیره‌سازی داده‌ها)، سازمانی (رهبری تحول‌آفرین، نیروی انسانی متخصص، مدیریت تغییر) و محیطی (زنجیره تأمین کارآمد) باید مورد توجه قرار گیرد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Identification, Modeling, and Scenario Analysis of key Success Factors for Smart Maintenance Management in Oil and Gas under Industry 4.0

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mohammadreza Mohammad Ghasemi 1
  • Ali Namazian 2

1 Department of Business Administration, Faculty of Financial Sciences, Management and Entrepreneurship, University of Kashan, Kashan, Iran

2 Department of Industrial Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Kashan, Kashan, Iran.

چکیده [English]

Maintenance constitutes major cost components in the oil and gas industries and play a vital role in maintaining production capacity and preventing accidents and unplanned damage costs. Despite the potential benefits of Industry 4.0 technologies, the development of this sector has been relatively slow, highlighting the need to identify and analyze the key success factors of Maintenance 4.0 in oil and gas industries to address existing limitations. This study was conducted in two parts: a qualitative phase (aimed at identifying key success factors) and a quantitative phase (aimed at modeling and scenario analysis). The analysis methods included thematic analysis in the qualitative section and the use of DEMATEL and Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping (FCM) in the quantitative section. The findings revealed 58 initial codes categorized into 15 key success factors. Backward scenario analysis indicated the importance of “system connectivity and integration” and “smart equipment condition monitoring,” while forward scenario analysis highlighted “system connectivity and integration,” “investment,” and “smart equipment condition monitoring” as the most influential factors. Therefore, the synergy among technical factors (data collection, transmission, and storage), organizational factors (transformational leadership, skilled workforce, and change management), and environmental factors (efficient supply chain) should be carefully considered to successfully implement Smart Maintenance in the oil and gas industry under the Industry 4.0 framework.
Introduction
Increasing global competition, growing production complexity, and the emergence of Industry 4.0 technologies have elevated maintenance management to a critical success factor for industrial organizations (Rojek et al., 2022; Kumar & Galar, 2018). In this context, Smart Maintenance, enabled by technologies such as the Internet of Things (IoT), artificial intelligence, and data analytics, facilitates continuous condition monitoring, early failure prediction, and informed decision-making, thereby enhancing operational efficiency, reliability, and safety (Cao et al., 2020; Jasiulewicz & Gola, 2019). The oil and gas industry, characterized by asset-intensive operations and high operational criticality, represents one of the most promising domains for the implementation of Smart Maintenance. However, challenges including high implementation costs, limited availability of reliable data, difficulties in integrating emerging technologies with legacy systems, and cybersecurity concerns continue to hinder its widespread adoption (Majstorović, 2022; Mojarad et al., 2018; Achouch et al., 2022). Accordingly, this study seeks to address the following research questions:
What are the critical success factors for Smart Maintenance Management implementation in the oil and gas industry within the Industry 4.0 paradigm?
What is the relative importance of these factors in terms of their influence and dependence?
What causal relationships exist among the identified critical success factors? And which intervention scenarios can most effectively enhance these factors and facilitate the successful implementation of Smart Maintenance Management?
 
Literature Review
A review of the literature indicates that research on Smart Maintenance has primarily focused on two main streams: investigating the opportunities and challenges associated with the implementation of Industry 4.0 technologies and identifying the success factors and barriers to Smart Maintenance adoption across various industries. Previous studies have confirmed the critical role of factors such as technological infrastructure, data quality, digital skills, management support, systems integration, and cybersecurity in the successful implementation of Smart Maintenance. In the oil and gas industry, research has mainly concentrated on the development of technical architectures, failure prediction models, and data-driven approaches to enhance maintenance performance. Nevertheless, existing studies have largely examined technical, managerial, or organizational dimensions separately and have paid limited attention to a comprehensive analysis of Smart Maintenance success factors within the specific context of the oil and gas industry. Furthermore, only a few studies have addressed the prioritization of these factors, the investigation of their causal relationships, and the development of intervention scenarios for performance improvement. Therefore, a comprehensive framework for identifying, prioritizing, and analyzing the dynamics of critical success factors for Smart Maintenance in the oil and gas sector is still lacking.
Methodology
This study employed a mixed-methods (qualitative–quantitative) design with an integrated approach conducted in three phases (the first phase being qualitative and the second and third phases being quantitative). In the first phase, with the aim of identifying the critical success factors of Smart Maintenance management in the oil and gas industry, qualitative data were collected through semi-structured interviews with experts in maintenance engineering and the oil and gas sector. The data were analyzed using thematic analysis based on Braun and Clarke (2006). In the second phase, the factors identified in the previous phase were further examined through a structured questionnaire to determine their levels of influence and dependence. This analysis was conducted by integrating the DEMATEL method and Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping (FCM), where the total relation matrix (T) derived from DEMATEL was used as the input interaction matrix for the FCM model. The FCM analysis was implemented using FCMapper software, while the network visualization was performed in Pajek. In the third phase, based on the results of the second phase, forward and backward scenarios were developed to analyze the effects of interventions on the critical factors. The validity and reliability of the findings were ensured through the criteria proposed by Guba and Lincoln, along with the calculation of the Holsti reliability coefficient.
Results
The findings indicate that the successful implementation of Smart Maintenance in the oil and gas industry depends on the identification and effective management of critical success factors. In the qualitative phase, a total of 58 critical success factors were identified and classified into 15 thematic groups. The results revealed that intelligent condition monitoring, system integration and connectivity, and investment are the most central factors, exhibiting the highest level of centrality and the strongest relationships with other identified factors. In the second and third phases, the study focused on ranking the identified factors, developing a fuzzy cognitive map model, and conducting scenario analyses. Based on the proposed FCM model, among the 15 groups of critical success factors, “system needs recognition,” “appropriate organizational culture,” and “efficient supply chain” were identified as driving factors, while “change management” was classified as a receiver factor, and the remaining factors were categorized as ordinary factors. The backward scenario analysis highlighted the importance of system integration and intelligent condition monitoring, whereas the forward scenario analysis emphasized the critical roles of system integration, investment, and intelligent condition monitoring in enhancing the effectiveness of Smart Maintenance implementation.
Discussion
The findings indicate that the critical success factors for Smart Maintenance implementation in the oil and gas industry can be categorized into three main groups: technical, organizational, and environmental, with their synergy being a fundamental requirement for success. Technical factors include digital infrastructure, data quality and integration, intelligent condition monitoring, cybersecurity, and process optimization, which collectively form the operational foundation of the system. Organizational factors play a decisive role in technology adoption and utilization, encompassing strategy, change management, organizational culture, skilled human resources, and top management support. Environmental factors are mainly related to the specific characteristics of the oil and gas industry, such as harsh operational conditions and supply chain constraints, which directly influence system effectiveness. The results show that weakness in any of these three dimensions can significantly undermine the overall system performance. Ultimately, the successful implementation of Smart Maintenance requires the simultaneous integration of technical, organizational, and environmental factors within a holistic systems-oriented approach.
Conclusion
This study aimed to identify and rank the critical success factors of Smart Maintenance in the oil and gas industry using an integrated DEMATEL and Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping (FCM) approach. In the qualitative phase, 58 factors were identified and categorized into 15 groups, among which intelligent condition monitoring, system integration, and investment exhibited the highest centrality. The FCM results indicated that “system needs recognition,” “organizational culture,” and “supply chain efficiency” act as driving factors, while “change management” functions as a receiver factor. Scenario analyses further emphasized the importance of system integration, intelligent monitoring, and investment. Overall, the findings highlight that the success of Smart Maintenance relies on the synergy of technical, organizational, and environmental factors.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Smart Maintenance
  • Industry 4.0
  • Oil and Gas Industries
  • Key Success Factors
  • Scenario Analysis
  1. آذر، عادل؛ خسروانی، فرزانه؛ جلالی، رضا (1395). تحقیق در عملیات نرم، رویکردی در عملیات نرم، رویکردهای ساختاری مسئله. چاپ دوم، تهران: انتشارات مدیریت صنعتی
  2. ابراهیمی، عباس؛ طاهری، فاطمه. (۲۰۲۴). شناسایی عوامل مؤثر بر توسعه فناوری‌های نوین در صنعت نفت ایران. چشم‌انداز حسابداری و مدیریت، ۷ (۹۶)، 26-44.‎
  3. رکن‌الدینی، سید علیرضا؛ عندلیب اردکانی، داود. (1403). تحلیل عوامل سازمانی مؤثر بر پذیرش فناوری‌های صنعت 4.0 در شرکت‌های کوچک و متوسط. چشم‌انداز مدیریت صنعتی، 1403، 14(2)، 112-85
  4. شکوه یار، سجاد؛ حقیقت منفرد، جلال؛ سربی، سامان. (1400). سیاست‌گذاری نگهداری و تعمیرات پیشگویانه در مراکز فرآوری نفت و گاز. فصلنامه مطالعات مدیریت راهبردی، 12(48)، 65-83.‎
  5. Bamakan, S. M. H., Malekinejad, P., Ziaeian, M., & Motavali, A. (2021). Bullwhip effect reduction map for COVID-19 vaccine supply chain. Sustainable Operations and Computers2, 139-148. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susoc.2021.07.001
  6. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology3(2), 77-101. doi: https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
  7. Bhatia, M. S., & Kumar, S. (2020). Critical success factors of industry 4.0 in automotive manufacturing industry. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 69(5), 2439-2453.
  8. (2017). Energy outlook 2017. Retrieved from http://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/pdf/energy-economics/energy-outlook-2017/bp-energy-outlook-2017.pdf
  9. Byington, C. S., & Garga, A. K. (2017). Data fusion for developing predictive diagnostics for electromechanical systems. In Handbook of Multisensor Data Fusion(pp. 721-758). CRC Press.
  10. Cachada, A., Barbosa, J., Leitño, P., Gcraldcs, C. A., Deusdado, L., Costa, J., ... & Romero, L. (2018, September). Maintenance 4.0: Intelligent and predictive maintenance system architecture. In 2018 IEEE 23rd international conference on emerging technologies and factory automation (ETFA)(Vol. 1, pp. 139-146). IEEE. doi: 1109/ETFA.2018.8502489
  11. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
  12. Dhaliwal, D. S. (1986). The use of AI in maintaining and operating complex engineering systems. Expert systems and Optimisation in Process Control, A. Mamdani and JE Pstachion, eds, 28-33.
  13. Dua, S. (2025). Exploring the experiences of oil and gas industry executives in embracing industry 4.0: Insights, challenges, and strategies. Computers & Industrial Engineering208, 111377. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2025.111377
  14. Erkan, E. F. (2023). An integrated Fuzzy DEMATEL and Fuzzy Cognitive Maps approach for the assessing of the Industry 4.0 Model. Journal of Engineering Research11(2B). doi: https://doi.org/10.36909/jer.12303
  15. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1982). Epistemological and methodological bases of naturalistic inquiry. Ectj, 30(4), 233-252.
  16. Kahn, H., & Wiener, A. (1967). The Year 2000; a framework for speculation on the next thirty-three years. Macmillan, 431 pages
  17. Kumar, U., & Galar, D. (2018). Maintenance in the era of industry 4.0: issues and challenges. Quality, IT and business operations: modeling and optimization, 231-250. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5577-5_19
  18. Liyanage, K., & Chinedu, O. An Industry 4.0 Maturity and Readiness for Condition-Based Maintenance in O&G Companies: a Delphi Study-Based Approach for Development and Validation. 6th European Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, Lisbon, Portugal, 18-20 July 2023
  19. Mojarad, A. A. S., Atashbari, V., & Tantau, A. (2018, March). Challenges for sustainable development strategies in oil and gas industries. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Business Excellence(Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 626-638). Sciendo. doi: 10.2478/picbe-2018-0056
  20. Nordal, H., & El‐Thalji, I. (2021). Modeling a predictive maintenance management architecture to meet industry 4.0 requirements: A case study. Systems Engineering, 24(1), 34-50.doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.21565
  21. Osunsanmi, T. O., Okafor, C. C., & Aigbavboa, C. O. (2023). Critical success factors for implementing smart maintenance in the fourth industrial revolution era: a bibliometric analysis within the built environment. Journal of Facilities Management, (ahead-of-print). doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-08-2024-1043
  22. Rojek, I., Jasiulewicz-Kaczmarek, M., Piechowski, M., & Mikołajewski, D. (2023). An artificial intelligence approach for improving maintenance to supervise machine failures and support their repair. Applied Sciences, 13(8), 4971. doi:  https://doi.org/10.3390/app13084971
  23. Sivanuja, T., & Sandanayake, Y. G. (2022). Strategies to Successfully Implement Industry 4.0 Concept for Predictive Maintenance in Facilities Management. FARU Journal9(2). doi: 4038/faruj.v9i2.165
  24. Stefanini, R., Tancredi, G. P. C., Vignali, G., & Monica, L. (2022). Industry 4.0 and intelligent predictive maintenance: a survey about the advantages and constraints in the Italian context. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, 29(5), 37-49. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/JQME-12-2021-0096
  25. Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research methods for business students (5th ed.). London: Prentice Hall.
  26. Tang, S., Zhu, K., & Guo, P. (2023). Research on quantitative assessment and dynamic reasoning method for emergency response capability in prefabricated construction safety. Buildings13(9), 2311. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13092311
  27. Tortorella, G. L., Fogliatto, F. S., Cauchick-Miguel, P. A., Kurnia, S., & Jurburg, D. (2021). Integration of industry 4.0 technologies into total productive maintenance practices. International Journal of Production Economics, 240, 108224.