The 1st international workshop and congress on eMaintenance 2010, 22-24 June, Lule, Sweden

Graphical Method for Visualization of Machines Downtime

(Case study of Scaling Machine)
Andi R. Wijaya

Jan Lundberg

Uday Kumar

Mechanical & Industrial Engineering

Gadjah Mada University, Indonesia
Div. of Operation & Maintenance
Engineering, Lule University of
Technology, Sweden

Division of Operation and

Maintenance Engineering
Lule University of Technology
Lule, Sweden
+46 (920) 491748

Division of Operation and

Maintenance Engineering
Lule University of Technology
Lule, Sweden
+46 (920) 491826

Andi.Wijaya@ltu.se

Jan.Lundberg@ltu.se

Uday.Kumar@ltu.se

communication within the organization, Yates (1985) found that

the use of graphs as a managerial tool is one of the key success.
Purpose of this study is to develop a graphical method that can be
used as visual communication tool for maintenance engineering in
communicating to people with various backgrounds.

ABSTRACT
Visualization is the foundation for human to understand as human
think and create in a graphic world. By nature, maintenance
activity is a multi discipline approach, where maintenance
engineer should be able to convey their idea to people with
various backgrounds. In this situation, visualization is a powerful
mode; it can act as a bridge to eliminate the knowledge gap within
the group. Knight (2001) developed Jack-knife diagram for
visualizing total downtime and factors influencing the failure
(failure frequency and mean downtime) in a point estimation. As
failure data is a probabilistic in nature, it is important to look not
only point estimation but also interval estimation, so the precision
and uncertainty of estimation can be identified. This paper
proposes a way of visualizing total downtime and factors
influencing the failure (failure frequency and mean downtime) in
interval estimation. Case study from scaling machines is used for
illustration.

2. DATA VISUALIZATION
Data visualization is a process of converting raw numerical data
into graphical depiction of the data. The goal is to support
decision making through the use of properly designed graphical
representation of information. Verbal and numeric cues are
insufficient to trigger some insight into the specific nature of the
problem (Larkin and Simon, 1987). Presenting data in graphics
helps to break a mental block by providing a memory structure to
aid the decomposition of information in the problem (Lohse,
2001). Schmid (1954) has been summarized the advantage of
graphs as compared with textual and tabular forms as follow;
1.

Graphs are more effective in creating interest and in

appealing to the attention of the reader
2. Visual relationships, as portrayed by graphs, are more
clearly grasped and more easily remembered.
3. It saves time, since the essential meaning of large
masses data can be visualized at a glance
4. It can provide a comprehensive picture of a problem
that makes possible a more complete and betterbalanced understanding.
5. It can bring out hidden facts and relationships and can
stimulate analytical thinking and investigation.
This superiority of graphs over textual and tabular forms makes
graphs as major components in recent science reform documents
(Friel, Curcio and Bright, 2001).

Keywords
Graphical method, Jack-knife diagram, Interval estimation.

1. INTRODUCTION
A quote from Aristotle Now we have already discussed
imagination in the treatise On the Soul, and we concluded there
that thought is impossible without an image. It emphasizes that
visualization is the foundation for human to understand as human
think and create in a graphic world. Presenting data in visual form
(graphs, pictures and diagrams) can enhance data comprehension,
decision-making and communication of data information (Roth
and Bowen, 2003; Tory and Mller, 2004). The reason is due to
stimulation of cognitive processes (visual chunking, mental
imagery and parallel processing) and reduction in cognitive load
(Winn, 1994; Card et al, 1999).

In maintenance engineering, however, the development of the

graph for data visualization is not significantly developed. In most
publication related to maintenance, a classic Pareto diagram still
be utilized for presenting failure data despite of its deficiency (Lin
and Titmuss, 1995; Ashraf, et al, 1998; Hennessy, 2000; Platfoot,
2000; Kortelainen, et al, 2003; Das, 2005). Knight (2001) pointed
out three shortcomings of Pareto analysis in maintenance
engineering application. First, where an outcome is a product of
two factors, a Pareto diagram based on one factor alone cannot
determine which factor is dominant in contributing to the
problems. Second, by focusing on any one factor to the exclusion
of others, it may miss identifying individual events having high
time consumption, or those that may consume relatively little

By nature, maintenance activity is a multi discipline approach,

where maintenance engineer should be able to convey their idea
to people with various backgrounds. The key success in this type
of situation is relying on how to communicate. Communication is
only successful when both the sender and the receiver understand
the same information as a result of the communication. It is
widely accepted that visualization can improve the effectiveness
of the communication. It can act as a bridge to eliminate the
barrier of knowledge gap within the group. In a study on effective

99

ISBN 978-91-7439-120-6

The 1st international workshop and congress on eMaintenance 2010, 22-24 June, Lule, Sweden

much longer times. The shapes of the lognormal distribution for

different parameters are shown in figure 2.

average time but have the ability to cause operational

disturbances. Third, Pareto diagram is not useful for trending
comparisons across different time periods. To overcome these
shortcomings, Knight have developed Jack-knife diagram. In his
method, number of failure and mean downtime is plotted in a
logarithmic scatter plots. Plotting in logarithmic allow a constant
downtime to be appeared as a constant straight lines with uniform
negative gradient. It still reserves the basic information of Pareto
diagram (to highlight the most contributed downtime) and enables
identification of the dominant factors influencing the failure
(failure frequency and mean downtime). In his method, downtime
is presented as a single value (point estimation). In the last
decade, presenting data as point estimation is considered to be
insufficient (Altman et al, 2000; Curran-Everett, 2004; Council of
Science Editors, 2006). Presenting estimation should also be
accompanied by the precision and the uncertainty of the
estimation. As failure data is a probabilistic in nature, it is
essential to see also the reliability of an estimate (Gardner and
Altman, 2000). Two components might have same value of
downtime, but at a given confidence level their interval might
differ significantly. Thus it is important in visualizing failure data
to show not only point estimation but also the interval estimation,
so the precision of estimation and the uncertainty of the
estimation can be identified.

The probability density function of Weibull distribution is given

as

g ( y) =

y
exp ,

y>0

(1)

where > 0 is the shape parameter and > 0 is the scale

parameter of the distribution. The expected value, in this case is
Mean Time between Failure (MTBF), is given by

E (Y ) = y = + 1

(2)

3. INTERVAL ESTIMATION
In this study, interval estimation is determined by using the
assumption that failure times have Weibull distribution and the
repair times have lognormal distribution. It is well known that
failure times are often modeled with Weibull distribution
(Abernethy, 2000; Wiseman, 2001; Schroeder and Gibson, 2006).
About 85% - 95% of all failures data are adequately described
with Weibull distribution (Barringer, 2009). The reasons are that
Weibull distribution has the ability to provide reasonably accurate
failure analysis with small sample size and it has no specific
characteristics shape and depending upon the values of the
parameters it can adapt shape of many distributions (Abernethy,
2000). The shapes of the Weibull distribution for a different shape
parameter are shown in figure 1.

Figure 2. Lognormal Distribution

The probability density function of lognormal distribution is
given as

f ( x) =

1 ln( x) 2
exp
, x>0

2
x 2

(3)

where and are the mean and standard deviation of the

variables natural logarithm. The expected value, in this case is
Mean Time to Repair (MTTR), is given by

E ( X ) = x = exp + 2
2

(4)

Let the total life time of component defined as

Total time = DT + UT

(5)

where DT is downtime and UT is uptime, and MTTR and MTBF

is given by

Figure 1. Weibull Distribution

MTTR =

DT
m

(6)

MTBF =

UT
m

(7)

where m is number of failures.

It also known that lognormal distribution is widely used to model

repair times (Rausand and Hyland, 2004; Bovaird and Zagor,
2006; Schroeder and Gibson, 2006). About 85%-95% of all repair
times are adequately described by log normal distribution
(Barringer, 2009). The skewness of the lognormal distribution
with a long tails to the right fit to represent the repairment
situation. In a typical repairment situation, most of the repairs are
completed in a small time interval but in some cases it can take

For a given uptime, downtime can be formulated by using

equation (6) and (7) as

DT =

MTTR
UT ,
MTBF

(8)

Since the failure time distribution is Weibull and the repair time
distribution is lognormal, equation can be rewritten as

100

ISBN 978-91-7439-120-6

The 1st international workshop and congress on eMaintenance 2010, 22-24 June, Lule, Sweden

DT =

x
UT ,
y

where

(9)

X G = geometric mean of lognormal distribution

and interval estimation for downtime can be determined by

finding a confidence interval for X Y . The confidence
interval can be determined by an approximate method and an
exact method. In the approximate method, the confidence interval
is determined by establishing confidence intervals for x and y
to obtain an at least type confidence interval. In exact method,
the confidence interval for X Y is established simultaneously.
The exact confidence interval is more accurate than approximate
the confidence interval. Another advantage is that since the
confidence interval is solved simultaneously, the result can be
treated as a single dimension rather than two dimensions.

= p

X G
exp

2
a
1
m
1 + 1 2 y

i =1

X G
exp

2
UT < DT < b
1
m
1 + 1 2 y

i =1

UT

= time between failure

= standard deviation of time to repairs natural logarithm

= shape parameter of Weibull distribution

= constant for lower limit

= constant for upper limit

P[a < w < b] = g ( w) dw = p

(12)

The cumulative distribution function (cdf) of W for a given value

of b (the probability of the even that W is less than or equal to b)
can be computed as follow

(10)

n
G (b ) =

which implies a 100p% confidence interval for DT is

2

= scale parameter of Weibull distribution

To establish a 100p% confidence interval for DT, the value for a

and b has to be determined so that

By adopting procedure developed by Masters et al (1992), the

exact confidence interval for X Y is given by

2
2
X G
X G
exp
exp

2
x
2

P a
b
<
<

1
1

m
m
y

1 + 1 2 y i
+ 1 2 y i

i =1
i =1

2
( m) 2

exp 2
0 0

ln 2 z

1
n 1
wz (wz ) dz dw (13)
2

where

(11)

m = number of failures
n = number of repairs.
Tables of G(b) for selected values is presented in table 1.

Table 1. Factors for Computing Confidence Interval of Down Time

(Gray and Lewis, 1967)

101

ISBN 978-91-7439-120-6

The 1st international workshop and congress on eMaintenance 2010, 22-24 June, Lule, Sweden

where

4. CONFIDENCE JACK-KNIFE DIAGRAM

In this study, a new way of presenting failure data is developed
allowing a visualization of the downtime estimation that are
accompanied by the precision and the uncertainty of the
estimation at a given confidence level. As the proposed diagram is
developed based on the jack-knife diagram, hence it shall be
referred as a confidence jack-knife diagram.

TTRL = time to repair of limit (upper or lower)

DTL

= downtime of limit (upper or lower)

DTmean = mean downtime

and ordinate is determined as

mL =

A confidence Jack-knife diagram is presenting as log-log graph

(both the vertical and horizontal axis of a plot is scaled
logarithmically). The horizontal axis represent time to repair and
the vertical axis represent number of failures. Downtime is
determined by the multiplication of time to repair and number of
failures. As the diagram is presenting in log-log graph, a curve of
a constant downtime can be presented as a straight lines with
uniform negative gradient, see figure 3.

DTL
TTR L

(16)

The interval estimation is then established by connecting these

three points with a straight line, see figure 3.

5. APPLICATIONS AND EXAMPLES

To give an illustration on how to construct a confidence jackknife diagram and how it can be applied, two examples are given
bellow.
Example 1
In this example, confident Jack-knife diagram is used for
visualization of downtime that can be used as an aid for
prioritization of significant components. Data of unplanned
downtime for scaling machine is presented in table 2. Failures
data and repairs time data are sorted in ascending order. Confident
Jack-knife diagram is constructed for a given uptime of 8000 unit
time and a confidence interval of 90%. Step by step for plotting
component A on jack-knife diagram is providing as follow;
1.

Figure 3. Confidence Jack-knife Diagram

To establish confidence jack-knife diagram, three estimation

points should be determined. These three points are mean, upper
limit and lower limit of downtime. The mean downtime for a
given uptime is determined from equation (8), and the upper limit
and lower limit of downtime are determined from equation (11).
Prior calculation, level of confidence should be decided. The
choice for the level of confidence is somewhat arbitrary, in
practice values of 90%, 95% and 99% are often used (Snedecor
and Cochran, 1989).

gives 24.54.
Second step is determining the coordinates of the three
downtimes. For DTmean abscissa is MTTR (4.88) and ordinate
is calculated by equation (14), for UT = 8000 and MTBF =
942.09, then mmean = 8.49. Abscissa of DTUL and DTLL can be
determined by equation (15). For DTLL = 24.54, DTUL =
104.2, DTmean = 41.52 and MTTR = 4.88, then TTRUL = 7.4
and TTRUL = 3.5. Ordinates of DTUL and DTLL is determined
by equation (16) that gives mLL = 6.1 and mUL = 12.8.
3. Third step is establishing interval estimation by connecting
the three estimation points by a straight line.
Following similar procedure, the rest of component can be plotted
in the diagram. A diagram for components of scaling machine is
shown in figure 4.

2.

After the three estimation points are determined, the next step is
to determine their coordinates in the diagram. The coordinates for
the mean downtime, abscissa (time to repair) is MTTR and
ordinate (number of failures) is determined as
mmean =

UT
MTBF

(14)

For lower limit and upper limit of downtime, abscissa is provided

by equation below

TTRL = 10

[log

DTL log DTmean + log MTTR

First step is determining the downtimes (mean, upper and

lower limit). Mean downtime (DTmean) is calculated by
equation (8) and for uptime (UT) = 8000, MTBF = 942.09
and MTTR = 4.88, it gives 41.52. Upper and lower limit of
downtime is calculated by equation (11). Prior the
calculation of upper limit of downtime (DTUL), value for b
should be determined first. Since number of repairs (n) = 10,
and = 0.91, then n/2 = 12.12 and number of failures (m) =
9. From table 1, if n/2 = 10, G(b) = 0.95, and m = 9, then b
= 39.427. If n/2 = 15, G(b) = 0.95, and m = 9, then b =
36.897. By using linear interpolation, b is approximately
38.61. DTUL is calculated for b = 38.61, = 0.91, X G = e =
e1.17 = 3.23, = 0.83, and = 850.89 that gives 104.2.
Similar procedure applied for calculation of lower limit of
downtime (DTLL). From table 1, if n/2 = 10, G(b) = 0.05,
and m = 9, then b = 8.9081. If n/2 = 15, G(b) = 0.95, and m
= 9, then b = 9.4707. By using linear interpolation, b is
approximately 9.09. DTUL is calculated for b = 9.09, =
0.91, X G = e = e1.17 = 3.23, = 0.83, and = 850.89 that

(15)

102

ISBN 978-91-7439-120-6

The 1st international workshop and congress on eMaintenance 2010, 22-24 June, Lule, Sweden

Table 2.Failure data of scaling machine

information is needed especially for certain activities where the

decision should be based on three scenarios (optimistic, most
likely and pessimistic), eg. planning and budgeting of
maintenance activities.
In some cases, the maximum downtime is limited to certain value
and in this regards it is important to know how likely that the
downtime of components exceed that limit. Suppose that due to
the consequences of the failure, it is decided that limit for the
maximum downtime is 300 unit time and it is demanding that the
maximum probability of error is 5%. Then it can be seen from
figure 4 that component B, E and H at the confidence level of
95% will exceed the limit.
Since in the confidence Jack-knife diagram, the downtime is
presenting as a function of time to repair and number of failures it
also visualizes the reliability and maintainability issues. It shows
which components that need to be improved their reliability
or/and maintainability. In figure 4, it shows that the high
downtimes of component B, F, E and C are mainly due to the
reliability problem (high value for the number of failures), while
the high downtime of component H is mainly due to
maintainability problem (high value for the time to repairs).
Suppose the smoothness (uninterrupted) of the operation is taken
into consideration in the prioritization of significant components.
For the similar value of downtime, a high frequent of interruption
with a short duration is less favor than a low frequent of
interruption with a long duration. Then it can be seen in the figure
4 that in comparing the components of F, E and H, which have
approximately equal mean downtime, a higher priority should be
given to components F and E than component H.

Figure 4. Confidence Jack-knife diagram for components of

scaling machine
From figure 4, it can be observed that presenting in interval
estimation provides better insight into the hidden fact of the data
than presenting in point estimation. For example in the
prioritization of significant components based on downtime, it
visualize that two different orders of the rank can be constructed.
The order of significant components based on the mean
estimation (likelihood) and lower limit estimation (best scenario)
is B, E, F, C, H, A, G, D, while based on the upper limit
estimation (worst scenario) is B, H, E, C, F, A, G, D. This kind of

Example 2.
In this example, confidence Jack-knife diagram is used to
visualize the effectiveness of design alternatives in reducing

103

ISBN 978-91-7439-120-6

The 1st international workshop and congress on eMaintenance 2010, 22-24 June, Lule, Sweden

downtime. In practice, strategy of redesign for reducing downtime

can be classified into three strategies, they are;
a.

Design out Maintenance (DOM), in this strategy, aim is to

improve reliability of the product so the number of failures
are reduced but the time to repairs are remain constant,
b. Design for Maintenance (DFM), in this strategy, aim is to
improve maintainability (how ease to maintain) of the
product so the time to repairs are reduced but the number of
failures are remain constant,
c. Combination of DOM and DFM, in this strategy, aim is to
improve both maintainability and reliability of the product.
To give an illustration, a set of artificial data is generated
portraying a typical design improvement scenario. Distribution
fitting of failures data of mechanical component shows that time
to fail fit to Weibull distribution with = 2.0, = 565.5 and
MTBF = 501.1 and time to repair fit to lognormal distribution
with = 3.05, = 0.47 and MTTR = 23.57. For an uptime of
11000 unit time, it gives a mean downtime of 517.4 unit times. To
reduce downtime, five alternative designs have been developed.
The first two designs (design A and B) adopted DOM strategy,
thus attempt is to increase MTBF by keeping a constant MTTR.
The second two designs (design D and E) adopted DFM strategy,
thus attempt is to reduce MTTR by keeping a constant MTBF.
The third design (design C) adopted a combination of DOM and
DFM strategy. Trial test have been conducted to evaluate the
effectiveness of the alternative designs in reducing downtime.
Results of the trial test (given in ascending order) are shown in
table 3.

Figure 5. Confidence Jack-knife diagram of design

alternatives
From figure 5, it shows that though the five design alternatives
have an equal mean downtime but their 95% confidence interval
are varied significantly. In case of lower limit (best scenario), a
discrepancy of approximately 40 unit times is observed, while in
case of upper limit (worst scenario), a discrepancy of
approximately 200 unit time is observed.

Table 3. Results of trial test of design alternatives

By just considering the downtime, design B might be the best

alternative, as it has the lower value of the downtime at the worst
scenario. However the stability of the strategies (DOM or/and
DFM) should also be taken into consideration. It can be observed
from figure 3 that in comparison of DOM and DFM strategies, the
downtime in case of DFM is more sensitive to distribution
parameters than in case of DOM. Changing the lognormal
distribution parameters from = 2.5, = 0.86 (design A) to =
2.8, = 0.36 (design B), will alter the downtime up to
approximately 200 unit times. While changing the Weibull
distribution parameters from = 2.0, = 757.6 (design E) to =
6.7, = 719.4 (design D) will alter the downtime by
approximately 40 unit time. Thus in this particular case, strategy
of DOM gives better stability than strategy of DFM. These kind
of information are needed in the decision making process and the
confident jack-knife diagram can be used as an aid in visualizing
alternative designs improvement.

From the table 3, it can be calculated that all five alternatives

designs have an equal ratio of MTTR/MTBF, approximately
0.035. It indicates that all design alternatives have an equal mean
downtime. For an uptime of 11000 unit times, it gives a mean
downtime of approximately 386.5 unit times which is lower than
the current design (517.4 unit times). A question arise is which
design alternative should be employed. Confidence Jack-knife
diagram is used to visualize the effectiveness of the five design
alternatives. Following similar procedure as example 1, the
diagram is constructed, as shown in figure 5.

6. Conclusions
A new way of presenting failure data is developed, allowing a
visualization of the downtime estimation and the precision and the
uncertainty of the estimation at a given confidence level and
factors influencing the failure. Presenting failure data in this new
diagram provides better insight into the hidden fact of the data. It
can be used as a visual communication tool for maintenance
engineering in communicating failure data to people with various
backgrounds.

104

ISBN 978-91-7439-120-6

The 1st international workshop and congress on eMaintenance 2010, 22-24 June, Lule, Sweden

Policy, TAPPI Journal, Vol.2 No. 8, pp. 8 12, available

at:
http://www.softmagic.fi/Contents/referenssit/82993803AUG
08.pdf (accessed 20 January 2010)

7. References
[1] Abernethy, R.B. (2000). The New Weibull Handbook, Gulf
Publisher Co., Houston
[2] Altman, D.G., Machin, D., Bryant, T.N. and Gardner, M.J.
(2000). Statistics with Confidence, BMJ Books, Bristol, UK

[16] Larkin, J.H. and Simon, H.A. (1987). Why a Diagram is

(Sometimes) Worth Ten Thousand Words, Cognitive
Science, Vol. 11, pp. 65 99

[3] Ashraf W.L, Richard, F.O. and Glyn, B.W. (1998). An

Effective Maintenance System Using the Analytic Hierarchy
Process, Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 9 No. 2,
pp. 87 98

[17] Lin, T. and Titmuss, D. (1995). Critical Component

Reliability and Preventive Maintenance Improvement to
Reduce Machine Downtime, Computers & Industrial
Engineering, Vol. 29 Issues 1-4, pp. 21 23

[4] Barringer, H.P. (2009). Which Reliability Tool Should I

Use?, available at:
http://www.reliabilityweb.com/art07/reliability_tools.htm
(accessed 20 January 2010).

[18] Lohse, G.L. (2001). Models of Graphical Perception, in

Karwowski, W. (Ed), International Encyclopedia of
Ergonomics and Human Factors, Taylor and Francis,
London.

[5] Bovaird, R.L. and Zagor, H.L. (2006). Lognormal

Distribution and Maintainability in Support Systems
Research, Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, Vol. 8 No.
4, pp. 343 356

[19] Masters, B.N., Lewis, T.O. and Kolarik, W.J. (1992). A

Confidence Interval for the Availability Ratio for System
with Weibull Operating Time and Lognormal Repair Time,
Microelectron Reliability, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 89 99.
Platfoot, R.A. (2000). Improving Return from
Maintenance, Proceedings of the IIR Maintenance
Management 2000, April 2000, Aukland, New Zealand,
available at:
http://www.covaris.com.au/papers/Improving%20Return%20
from%20Maintenance.pdf (accessed 20 January 2010)

[6] Card, S.K., Mackinlay, J.D. and Schneiderman, B. (1999).

Reading in Information Visualization: Using Vision to Think,
Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco
[7] Council of Science Editors, Style Manual Subcommittee,
(2006). Scientific Style and Format: the CSE Manual for
Authors, Editors, and Publishers, 7th ed., Rockefeller Univ.
Press, Reston, Virginia, USA

[20] Rausand, M. and Hyland, A. (2004). System Reliability

Theory: Models, Statistical Methods, and Applications, John
Wiley and Sons Inc., New Jersey

[8] Curran-Everett D. and Benos, D.J. (2004). Guidelines for

Reporting Statistics in Journals Published by the American
Physiological Society, American Journal of Physiology
Endocrinology and Metabolism, Vol. 287, pp. E189 E191

[21] Roth, W.M. and Bowen, G.M. (2003). When are Graphs
Worth Ten Thousand Words? An Expert-expert Study,
Cognition and Instruction, Vol. 21, pp. 429 473

[9] Das, P. (2005). Improving the Maintenance System of

Tippers A Case Study, Economic Quality Control, Vol.
20 No. 1, pp. 51 67

[22] Schmid, C.F. (1954). Handbook of Graphic Presentation,

Ronald Press Co., New York

[10] Friel, S.N., Curcio, F.R. and Bright, G.W. (2001). Making
Sense of Graphs: Critical Factors Influencing
Comprehension and Instructional Implications, Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, Vol. 32, pp. 124 158

[23] Schroeder, B. and Gibson, G. (2005). A Large-scale Study

of Failures in High-performance-computing Systems,
Supercedes Carnegie Mellon University Parallel Data Lab
Technical Report, CMU-PDL-05-112, Carnegie Mellon
University, available at: http://www.pdl.cmu.edu/PDLFTP/stray/CMU-PDL-05-112.pdf (accessed 20 January
2010)

[11] Gardner, M.J. and Altman, D.G. (2000). Estimating with

Confidence, in Altman, D.G., Machin, D., Bryant, T.N. and
Gardner, M.J. (eds.), Statistics with Confidence, BMJ Books,
London

[24] Snedecor, G.W. and Cochran, W.G. (1989). Statistical

Methods, 8th Edition, Iowa State University Press., Iowa

[12] Gray, H.L. and Lewis, T.O. (1967). A Confidence Interval

for the Availability Ratio, Technometrics, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp.
465 471.

[25] Tory, M. and Mller, T. (2004). Human Factors in

Visualization Research, IEEE Transactions on Visualization
and Computer Graphics, Vol. 10, pp. 72 84

[13] Hennessy, C., Freerks, F., Campbell, J.E. and Thompson,

B.M. (2000). Automated analysis of failure event data,
Proceeding of the Modeling and Analysis of Semiconductor
Manufacturing Conference, Tempe, Arizona, March 27,
2000, available at:
http://www.osti.gov/bridge/purl.cover.jsp?purl=/752663aq6kj7/webviewable/ (accessed 20 January 2010)

[26] Winn, W.D. (1994). Contributions of Perceptual and

Cognitive Processes to the Comprehension of Graphics, in
Schnotz, W. and Kulhavy, R. (Eds.), Comprehension of
Graphics, Elsevier, Amsterdam

[14] Knights, P. (2001). Rethinking Pareto Analysis:

Maintenance Applications of Logarithmic Scatterplots,
Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 7 No.
4, pp. 252 263

[27] Wiseman, M. (2001). Reliability Management and

Maintenance Optimization: Basic Statistics and Economics,
in Campbell, J.D and Jardine, A.K.S. (Eds), Maintenance
Excellence: Optimizing Equipment Life-Cycle Decisions,
Marcel Dekker Inc., New York

[15] Kortelainen, H., Kupila, K., Silenius, S. and Pivike, A.

(2003). Data for Better Maintenance Plans and Investments

[28] Yates, J. (1985). Graphs as a Managerial Tool: A Case

Study of Du Pont's Use of Graphs in the Early Twentieth

105

ISBN 978-91-7439-120-6

The 1st international workshop and congress on eMaintenance 2010, 22-24 June, Lule, Sweden

Century, Journal of Business Communication, Vol. 22 No.

1, pp. 5 33

106

ISBN 978-91-7439-120-6