TOTAL PRODUCTIVE MAINTENANCE IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY

IN MALAYSIA

JONATHAN WEE JIAN MENG

A project report submitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the award of the degree of
Master of Engineering (Industrial Engineering)

Faculty of Mechanical Engineering

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia

MAY 2011

iii

Specially dedicated to my beloved parents, siblings

and always cherished friends

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First of all, I would like thank God, on which my help and strength comes from.
Truly none of this researched would have been possible without His grace and mercy. I
had so many mentors over the course of this research for whom I am eternally grateful.
One of them is my supervisor, Professor Dr. Noordin Mohd Yusof who has provided
much guidance, knowledge and advice during the course of this project. My appreciation
also goes to Mr. Andy Wee from Global Foundries Singapore and Mr. Song Pui Tong,
TPM coordinator of Wafer Fab, National Semiconductor who had reviewed and provided
expert opinion on my survey questionnaire.

I would also like to thank my parents, Mr. Wee Seng Tee and Mdm. Lucy Lim for
being my pillar of support and encouragement in times of need and despair. I will always
be grateful to them for teaching me to be the person God made me to be.

Last but not least, I would like to thank my course mates and friends for their
advice and contributions along the course of my research.

ABSTRACT

Large number of framework of Total Productive Maintenance (TPM)

elements/strategies have been proposed by different authors in TPM literature. However,
most of them are based on studies done in countries such as Japan, Italy, USA, China and
India. Thus, this study aims to evaluate TPM elements/strategies emphasis and their
contribution towards manufacturing performance in electrical and electronic industry in
Malaysia. A survey methodology is used where questionnaires are sent to 240 companies
in electrical and electronic industry in Malaysia with the resulting response rate of 12.5 %
which is comparable with other studies. The TPM element most emphasized on in
Malaysian electrical and electronic industry is planned maintenance management while
the least emphasized element is on top management leadership. Using statistical tools, the
correlation between TPM elements emphasis and manufacturing performance dimension
has been calculated. The study reveals that the TPM elements top management
leadership, planned maintenance management, focused improvement, autonomous
maintenance and education and training have significant contribution towards
manufacturing performance such as lower cost, higher quality, strong delivery and
increased productivity. The five TPM elements could be used as a guideline for
companies wanting to implement TPM as well as evidence to convince management of
the importance of TPM towards the organization. Besides that, there are also no
significant differences found of TPM element practices between electrical and electronic
industry while only some elements are significant when comparing small and medium
industry (SME) and large companies. In addition, the longer the TPM implementation
time period, the more improvements are seen in manufacturing performance.

vi

ABSTRAK

Terdapat banyak panduan tentang elemen atau strategi Total Productive

Maintenance (TPM) yang telah dicadangkan oleh penulis berlainan dalam bidang
literatur TPM. Namun begitu, kebanyakannya adalah hasil kajian yang dijalankan di
negara- negara seperti Jepun, Itali, USA, China dan India. Oleh sebab itu, kajian ini
bertujuan untuk mengkaji elemen atau strategi TPM dan sumbangan mereka terhadap
prestasi syarikat pembuatan Malaysia dalam bidang elektrik and elektronik. Soal selidik
digunakan sebagai methodologi kajian ini and ia dihantar kepada sejumlah 240 syarikat
dalam bidang elektrik and elektronik di Malaysia. Kadar sambutan adalah 12.5 % yang
setaraf dengan kadar sambutan kajian lain. Elemen TPM yang paling banyak diamalkan
oleh syarikat di Malaysia ialah planned maintenance management dan yang paling
kurang diberi tumpuan ialah top management leadership. Hubungan di antara elemen
TPM dengan pencapaian sesebuah organisasi dikaji dengan mengunakan kaedah statistik.
Kajian mendapati bahawa elemen TPM seperti top management leadership, planned
maintenance management, focused improvement, autonomous maintenance dan
education and training telah menyumbang secara kritikal terhadap pencapaian sesebuah
organisasi terutama dalam menurunkan kos, qualiti yang tinggi, penghantaran produk
yang cepat dan tepat, dan peningkatan produktiviti. Lima elemen TPM tersebut boleh
digunakan sebagai panduan kepada syarikat yang ingin mengamalkan TPM dan juga
sebagai bukti kepada pihak atasan tentang sumbangan TPM kepada syarikat tersebut.
Selain itu, tidak ada perbezaan dari segi elemen TPM yang diamalkan di antara industri
elektrik dan elektronik dan hanya sesetengah elemen yang berbeza apabila dibandingkan
antara industri kecil dan sederhana dengan industri yang besar. Tambahan pula, lebih
lama TPM diamalkan, lebih jelas peningkatan dalam pencapaian syarikat tersebut.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER

TITLE

PAGE

DECLARATION

ii

DEDICATION

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

iv

ABSTRACT

ABSTRAK

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

vii

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES

xi

LIST OF APPENDICES

xii

INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction

1.2 Problem Statement

1.3 Objective

1.4 Scope

LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Total Productive Maintenance History & Definition

2.2 TPM Basic Concepts

10

2.2.1 Pillars of TPM

11

2.2.2 Tools of TPM

15

viii
2.2.3 Overall Equipment Effectiveness
2.3 TPM Implementation Steps

17
21

METHODOLOGY
3.1 Study Procedure

26

3.2 TPM Model

29

3.2.1 Total Productive Maintenance Strategies

/ Elements
3.2.2 Manufacturing Performance Dimensions
3.3 Reliability and Validity of Questionnaire Survey

30
37
39

SURVEY RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Introduction

40

4.2 General Profile of the Respondent

41

4.2.1 Size of the Company

41

4.2.2 Type of Industry

42

4.2.3 Number of Years of TPM Implementation

43

4.3 Reliability Test

44

4.4 Validity Test

45

4.5 Level of Emphasis of TPM Elements/Strategies

46

4.6 Evaluating of TPM Element Emphasis and their

contribution towards Manufacturing Performance

48

4.6.1 Relationship between Factors

48

4.6.2 Discussion on Relationship between TPM

Element Emphasis and Manufacturing
Performance
4.7 Test of Significant between Differences of Mean

49
52

4.7.1 Differences of TPM Element Practices between

Electrical and Electronic Industry

52

ix
4.7.2 Differences of TPM Element Practices between
SMEs and Large Companies

53

4.8 Effect of TPM Implementation Time Period on

Manufacturing Performance Dimension
4.9 Summary

REFERENCES

APPENDICES

55
57

CONCLUSION
5.1 Introduction

59

5.2 Conclusion

59

5.3 Limitations

61

5.4 Future Works

61

62

72 - 93

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE NO.

TITLE

PAGE

2.1

TPM development in Japan

2.2

Details on the 8 TPM pillars

12

2.3

Key activities for effective 5S implementation at the

workplace

13

2.4

Sixteen major losses impeding manufacturing performance 18

2.5

Twelve step TPM implementation methodology

20

4.1

Breakdown of respondent in terms of their size of industry

41

4.2

Breakdown of respondent based on types of industry

42

4.3

Internal consistency test results

44

4.4

Validity test with principal component analysis and KMO

Test

46

4.5

The mean of TPM elements/strategies

46

4.6

Pearsons correlation between various TPM elements and

manufacturing performance dimension

48

4.7

t test results between electrical and electronic industry

53

4.8

Results of comparison of TPM element practices between

SMEs and large companies

4.9

Classification of responses based on TPM implementation

time period

4.10

54

55

Results of manufacturing performance dimension over

TPM implementation time period

56

xi

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE NO

TITLE

PAGE

2.1

Eight pillars of TPM implementation

11

2.2

TPM Pillars (Yeomans and Millington Model)

13

2.3

TPM Pillars (Steinbacher and Steinbacher Model)

14

2.4

Calculation of OEE based on six major production losses

18

2.5

TPM rollout plan (Productivity, 1999)

23

3.1

Methodology used for this study

28

3.2

TPM Model

29

4.1

Number of years of TPM implementation

43

4.2

TPM relationship model

51

xii

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX

TITLE

PAGE

Sample of letter and TPM questionnaire survey

72

Sample of SPSS data

82

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1

Introduction

In todays competitive and mature economic environment, many manufacturing

plants worldwide faces many challenges to achieve world-class manufacturing standards
in operations.

In addition, market forces are demanding more emphasis on

customization, quick delivery and superb quality (Raouf and Ben-Daya, 1995). Thus, the
competitive power of a typical manufacturing company increasingly depends on the
speeds of obtaining market information and of creating advanced production engineering
to develop new attractive products and to establish an appropriate production process,
the production lead times and the speed of distribution. These pressures demand
excellent maintenance practices in such a way that machines and processes are available
whenever needed and able to produce the desired products with the required quality
level (Yamashita, 1994). Reliable equipment, operating at the lowest possible cost is
also an essential enabler of profits (Williamson, 2006). Modern manufacturing has to
possess both efficient and effective maintenance in to order to be successful. One
approach to improve the performance of maintenance activities is to implement a total
productive maintenance (TPM) system. In fact, the only proven work culture that
promotes and sustains reliable equipment at lower costs is through Total Productive
Maintenance (Williamson, 2006). TPM is also considered to be an effective strategic
improvement initiative for improving quality in maintenance engineering activities
(Ollila and Malmipuro, 1999).

The successful implementation of TPM in a manufacturing enterprise depends on

approach or strategies that management use during the implementation stage. A well
drawn TPM implementation plan not only improves equipment efficiency and
effectiveness but also brings appreciable improvement in other areas such as reduction
of manufacturing cycle time, size of inventory, customer complaints and creates
cohesive small group autonomous teams and increase the skill and confidence of the
individual (Shamsuddin et al., 2005).

Implementing TPM is a strategic decision that the management has to make

which can be assisted by utilizing a form of framework. A framework can act as a guide
and provides a structured approach to achieve certain objectives (Mishra et al., 2008).

1.2

Problem Statement

There are a large number of frameworks which has been proposed by authors and
consultants in the literature of Total Productive Maintenance (TPM). However, most of
them are based on studies done in countries such as Japan, Italy, USA, China and India.
TPM methods and techniques were first successfully implemented in Japan and later
followed and adapted in other countries of the world. For example, Bamber et al. (1999)
has discussed about the factors affecting successful TPM implementation and describe
the same using a case study of a medium-scale manufacturing industry in the UK. In
India, the use of complimentary and proven strategies of TPM has contributed towards
achieving core competence of the organization in a competitive environment (Ahuja et
al., 2004). Tsang and Chan (2000) had studied the implementation of TPM in China
through a case study approach. Ireland and Dale (2001) also discussed about TPM
implementation in three industries a rubber product industry, a packaging company
and a motorized vehicle manufacturer.

3
Despite following a structured approach in developing the framework, each
country has their own emphasis on TPM elements or strategies. In other words, the
environmental-country factor explains a significant portion of variation in TPM
implementation. For example, Kathleen et al. (1999) had found that the three countries
that were surveyed, Japan, USA and India have different emphasis on TPM
implementation. Italy placed less priority on autonomous maintenance and cross training
compared to the USA and Japan. On the other hand, Japan has similar emphasis on
housekeeping and training with USA but has a higher level of operator involvement and
discipline planning compare to the USA. These country differences could be because of
cultural differences that support or hinder TPM implementation and other measures that
differ from country to country.

Due to the lack of comprehensive studies on TPM strategies or elements in

Malaysia, this study aims to find a suitable operational strategy or TPM elements
emphasis for the Malaysian manufacturing industry specifically in the electrical and
electronic industry. Besides that, analysis will be done to see the effect of these TPM
initiatives towards the core competencies or benefits to the manufacturing organization.
There is limited information available regarding the contributions of TPM strategies in
Malaysia. The ones done such as Shamsuddin et al. (2004) and One et al. (2006) are
more of a case study implementation and shows only the extent of TPM implementation
in the respective industries. Besides that, difference of TPM strategies or elements
practices between electrical and electronic industry, as well as between small medium
industry (SME) and large companies will also be explored. The effect of TPM
implementation time period on manufacturing performance will also be covered as well.

4
1.3

Objective

The objective of this study is to evaluate the TPM elements or strategies

emphasis in manufacturing industry specifically electrical and electronic
industries in Malaysia and their contribution towards manufacturing performance.

1.4

Scope

1. Intensive literature review will be done on existing TPM strategies

frameworks and questionnaires built based on it.
2. Random sampling conducted on the electrical and electronic industries in
Malaysia.
3. Using statistical tools to find correlation of respective TPM elements/
strategies emphasis towards different aspects of company performance.
4. Test of significance will be performed to study differences of TPM elements
practices between electrical and electronic industry as well as between SMEs
and large companies.
5. Effect of TPM implementation time period on manufacturing performance
will also be covered.

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1

Total Production Maintenance History and Definitions

The Japanese develop the concept of TPM based on Preventive Maintenance

concepts and methodology. This concept was first introduced by Nippon Denso Co. Ltd
of Japan, a supplier of Toyota Motor Company, Japan in 1971 (Nakajima, 1989).
Nakajima (1989) highlighted how the research group, the Japan Institute of Plant
Engineers (JIPE) (now known as Japan Institute of Plant Maintenance, JIPM) was form
after a mission to the USA to study plant maintenance. JIPE then started to work closely
with Nippon Denso on the issue of PM and the change of roles of the operators to allow
them to carry out routine maintenance led to the beginning of TPM.

Early TPM implementation in Japan was primarily within the automotive

industry, particularly within Toyota and their associated component suppliers (Robinson
and Ginder, 1995). However, not many Japanese companies initiated TPM in the
beginning and earlier TPM implementation was met with limited success (Tajiri and
Gotoh, 1992). This all changed in the 1970s when Japan faced a worsening economic
climate and adoption of TPM began to accelerate as a means to improve manufacturing
productivity (Ireland and Dale, 2001). Structured and phased implementation processes
such as those developed by Nakajima (1989) provided standardized and repeatable
methodology for TPM. Table 2.1 shows an overview of TPM development in Japan
(Nakajima, 1989).

6
Table 2.1: TPM development in Japan
Era
Emerging
concepts

1950's
Preventive Maintenance
Establishing scheduled
maintenance functions

Supporting - Preventive
Maintenance (PM)
theories
1951
- Productive
Maintenance (PM)
1954
- Maintainability
Improvement (MI)
1957

Significant
historical
events

1951 Toa Nenryo

Kogyo 1st Japanese
company to adopt PM
1953 20 Japanese
companies form a PM
research group which
later became JIPM
1958 American George
Smith visits Japan to
promote PM

1960's
Productive Maintenance
(PM) Recognizing the
importance of equipment
reliability, maintenance
- Maintenance
Prevention (MP) 1960
- Reliability Engineering
1962
- Maintainability
Engineering 1962
- Engineering
Economics

1970's
Total Productive
Maintenance (TPM)
Achieving PM efficiency
through a comprehensive
- Behavioral Science
- Management by
Innovation and
Creation (MIC)
- Performance Analysis
and Control (PAC)
- Systems Engineering
- Ecology
- Terotechnology
- Maintenance
Logistics
1960 Japan hosts the first
1970 the annual
international
International Convention
maintenance convention
on Equipment
1962 Japan Productivity
Maintenance held in
Association sends an envoy to the U.S. Japan
to study
1973 the United
equipment engineering
Nations Industrial
1963 Japan attends the
Development
International Convention
Organization sponsors a
on Equipment Maintenance in London Maintenance Repair
1964 the first PM prize is awarded to Symposium in Japan
Nippondenso in Japan
1969 Japan Institute of
Plant Engineers (JIPE)
established, later to
become Japan Institute of
Plant Maintenance (JIPM)

TPM represents a radical change in the way maintenance is being look at. It is a
methodology and philosophy of strategic equipment management focused on the goal of
building product quality by maximizing equipment effectiveness. Originally introduced
as a set of practices and methodologies focused on manufacturing equipment
performance improvement, TPM has matured into a comprehensive equipment-centric
effort to optimize manufacturing productivity (Ahuja and Pankaj, 2009). The goal of
TPM or also known as Total Productive Manufacturing is to continuously improve all
operational conditions of a production system by stimulating daily awareness of all
employees (Nakajima, 1989). It is not something that is only implemented and
contributed by top level management. Rather it involves from the very top of the

7
organization till the shop level workers. An effective TPM implementation program
provides for a philosophy based upon the empowerment and encouragement of
personnel from all areas in the organization (Davis and Wilmott, 1999). TPM is a system
or culture that takes advantage of abilities and skills of all individuals in an organization
(Patterson et al., 1996).

Two different approaches towards the definition of TPM can be found from the
Japanese approach represented by Nakajima (1989), Tajiri and Gotoh (1992) and
Shirose (1996) while the Western approach is represented by Willmott (1994), Wireman
(1991) and Hartmann (1992) although there are significant commonality within the two
(Bamber et al., 1999). The differences in the Japanese and Western approach to defining
TPM are subtle, with commonality highlighted more than significant variation. The
Japanese approach emphasizes the role of teamwork, small group activities and the
participation of all employees in the TPM process to accomplish equipment
improvement objectives. The Western approach focuses on the equipment while
understanding that operator involvement and participation in the TPM effort is required.
While very similar, the Japanese approach seems to be more people and process focused
while the Western definition approaches first from equipment improvement objectives,
which moves the emphasis away from both maintenance and teamwork and towards
equipment management and utilization with operator participation (Bamber et al.,
1999).

Williamson (2006) observed that to tap into the powerful capabilities and
simplicity of TPM, it is important to understand what TPM is and what it is not. Total
Productive Maintenance is an organization-wide equipment improvement strategy, and
isnt just a maintenance improvement program; a data-based equipment improvement
strategy focused on a specific business case for improvement and not just a program to
be implemented; a systematic focus on eliminating the major equipment-related losses
and not a program to clean and paint machines; a strategy that demands the involvement
of anyone who contributes to a problem (engineers, procurement, maintenance,
operations, process technicians, quality, storeroom, vendors/manufacturers, trainers,

8
hourly and management) and not merely involving operators in autonomous
maintenance. Next, TPM is a systematic use of proven TPM tools to eliminate
specific problem and not just tools to implement in the workplace in the hopes that they
will be put to good use. It is a culture change (evolution) led by top management with
very clear business expectations and not to be led by the maintenance or plant
engineering organizations. It is also the only proven work culture that promotes and
sustains reliable equipment at lower costs and not just one of many options for
improving equipment reliability and/or cutting costs

According to Shingo (2007), TPM has these 5 basic precepts. Firstly, to built a
profitable operation by making production more economical through the elimination of
accidents, quality defects in products and breakdowns of machines. Next, practice
prevention rather than cure through initiatives such as maintenance prevention,
preventive maintenance and corrective maintenance. TPM also has to involve everyone
in the organization and practices participatory management. It uses hands on or shop
floor approach by bringing the equipment into its ideal state, introduce extensive visual
control and create clean, uncluttered and well organized workplaces. Lastly, TPM aims
to create a virtuous circle of workplace expertise by developing a self sustaining,
continuously evolving culture of self directed workplace management.

TPM promotes the overlap of small groups, integrating organizational and small
group improvement activity as discussed by Nakajima (Winter et.al., 1984). Integrating
small group activities into the organizational structure is part of TPM implementation.
The small group goals should coincide with company goals and the maturity of small
activities can be evaluated. Top management must inspire the small group activities
(Nakajima, 1989). Kogyo (1991) presents TPM as a combination of American
maintenance practices with Japanese quality control concepts and small group activities
to revolutionize plant maintenance. It is an innovative system for equipment
maintenance that optimizes effectiveness, eliminates breakdowns and promotes
autonomous operator maintenance through day-to-day activities. The emergence of TPM
is intended to bring both production and maintenance functions together by a

9
combination of good working practices, team working and continuous improvement
(Cooke, 2000).

Besides that, TPM also complements other world-class manufacturing strategies

such as Total Quality Management (TQM), Just-in-Time Manufacturing (JIT), Total
Employee Involvement (TEI), Continuous Performance Improvement (CPI) and many
others. For example, in order to be strong enough in manufacturing one has to have good
brains which require Total Quality Management (TQM), but one also needs to have
strong muscles or, in order words, strong manufacturing capabilities which require Total
Productive Maintenance (TPM). Moreover, one has to have a good nervous system to
connect the brain with the muscles which means Just-in-Time production (JIT)
(Yamashita, 1994).

Companies practicing TPM invariably achieve startling results, particularly in

reducing equipment breakdowns, minimizing idling and minor stoppages, lessening
quality defects and claims, boasting productivity, trimming labor and cost, shrinking
inventory, cutting accidents and promoting employee involvement (Suzuki, 1994).
Japanese firms that won the JIPM PM prize between 1984 and 1986 also demonstrated
similar improvements such as equipment failures reduced from 1,000 per month to 20
per month, quality defects reduced from 1.0% to 0.1%, warranty claims reduced by
25%, maintenance costs reduced by 30%, WIP decreased by 50% and productivity
improved by 50% (Patterson and Fredendall, 1996). TPM plays an important role in
contemporary manufacturing by helping to increase machine uptime and product quality.
It entails TPM in the implementation of effective corrective, preventive, predictive, and
autonomous maintenance programs, setup time reduction, tool management, visual
management and housekeeping, and spare parts inventory control. TPM implementation
impacts material handling, storage alternatives, to move and store tools, PM materials,
testing equipment, spare parts and even impacts workstation layout, too (Tompkins et
al., 1996).

10
In addition, TPM implementation can also lead to realization of intangible
benefits in the form of improved image of the organization, leading to the possibility of
increased orders. After the introduction of autonomous maintenance activity, operators
take care of machines without being ordered to. With the achievement of zero
breakdown, accident and defects, operators get new confidence in their own abilities and
the organization also realize the importance of employee contributions towards the
realization of manufacturing performance (Dossenbach, 2006). Ames (2003) observed
that the intangible benefits of TPM implementation in semiconductor operations
included increased management involvement in day-to-day activities, higher level of
shop floor employee involvement (team activities) in improvement activity and greater
employee empowerment.

2.2

TPM Basic Concepts

TPM seeks to maximize equipment effectiveness throughout the lifetime of the

equipment. It strives to maintain the equipment in optimum condition in order to prevent
unexpected breakdown, speed losses and quality defects occurring from process
activities. Thus the three ultimate goals of TPM are zero defects, zero accident and zero
breakdowns (Nakajima, 1989; Willmott, 1994). Among the principles embraced by TPM
to achieve these goals are total employee involvement, autonomous maintenance by
operators, small group activities to improve equipment reliability, maintainability and
productivity and continuous improvement (kaizen) (Ahuja and Khamba, 2008). Maier et
al. (1998) on the other hand, considers preventive maintenance, teamwork shop floor
employee competencies, measurement and information availability work environment,
work documentation and extent of operator involvement in maintenance activities as
factors reflecting TPM implementation. Although according to Wireman (1991), there is
no single right method for the implementation of a TPM program and there has been a
complexity and divergence of TPM programs adopted throughout the industry as stated
by Bamber, et al., (1999), it is clear that a structured implementation process is an

11
identified success factor and a key element of TPM programs. These basic practices or
programs of TPM are often called pillars of TPM.

2.2.1 Pillars of TPM

The entire edifice of TPM is built and stands on eight pillars (Sangameshwran
and Jagannathan, 2002) which are focused improvement; autonomous maintenance;
planned maintenance; training and education; early-phase management; quality
maintenance; office TPM; and safety, health, and environment. TPM paves way for
excellent planning, organizing, monitoring and controlling practices through its unique
eight pillar methodology. These eight pillar implementation plan which is proposed by
JIPM results in an increased in labor productivity through controlled maintenance,
reduction in maintenance costs and reduced production stoppages and downtimes (Ahuja
and Khamba, 2007). The eight pillars of TPM are shown in Figure 2.1. Shingo (2007)
also described in detail the eight pillars of TPM on their respective goals and

Early Management

responsibility which is depicted in Table 2.2.

Figure 2.1: Eight pillars of TPM implementation

13
Most organizations have since closely followed the JIPM recommended eight
pillars of TPM and the various TPM consultants that adherently follow this are such as
TPM Club India, Imants BVBA Consulting and Services, Australian Die Casting
Association, Advanced Productive Solutions, Promaint Inc. and Shekhar Jitkar (Mishra
et al., 2008). For example, the Australian Die Casting Association (ADCA) has
developed a framework which is adopted by a company named Nissan Casting in
Australia. This framework has eight pillars which are similar to that of the JIPM
framework but the names of many of the major pillars of JIPM are changed to avoid
confusion caused by the literal Japanese translation (Luxford, 1998). Similarly, Imants
BVBA consulting and services also proposed eight pillars that involve the cooperation
of the equipment and process support personnel, equipment operator and equipment
supplier. They must work together to eliminate equipment breakdowns, reduced
scheduled downtime and maximize utilization, throughput and quality (Imants BVVA
Consulting and Services, 2004).

However, some TPM consultants and practitioners have simplified the Nakajima
model by eliminating some pillars. One of them is Yeomans and Millington (1997) who
has developed their model based on the theory of classic Japanese TPM approach, which
is built on five strategic pillars. Figure 2.2 shows their five pillar model that map to five
of Nakajimas pillars (Yeomans and Millington, 1997).

Figure 2.2: TPM Pillars (Yeomans and Millington Model)

14
A similar simplified model is shown in Figure 2.3 (Steinbacher and Steinbacher,
1993). This framework model also comprises of five pillars. This is the model followed
by Western countries and the authors have emphasized on training and education as an
integral element of their pillars rather than a stand-alone pillar as in the Nakajima model
(Steinbacher and Steinbacher, 1993).

Figure 2.3: TPM Pillars (Steinbacher and Steinbacher Model)

Other models which have only few pillars that differ from the JIPM model and
pillars that cover only the basic definition of TPM like Strategic Work Systems, Society
for Maintenance and Reliability Professionals and Society of Manufacturing Engineers
(Mishra et al., 2008). For example, Strategic Work Systems, Inc. is a consultancy firm
which emphasizes that TPM is an equipment and process improvement strategy that
links many of the elements of a good maintenance programme to achieve higher levels
of equipment effectiveness. In addition to the five key elements or pillars of TPM it also
includes a sixth element teamwork, focused on common goals including equipment
reliability (Williamson, 2000).

However, there are also a few models that are totally different from JIPM such as
Aramis Management System, Volvo Cars Gent, the Centre for TPM Australasia and
Phillips 66. One example is the implementation of TPM at Volvo Cars Gent (VCG)
which is based upon 13 committees or development pillars. Some of the unique pillars in

15
this framework are: customer-ordered production, early product management, logistics,
supplier support and integration in society (Volvo Cars Gent, 1998).

2.2.2 Tools of TPM

A variety of tools are often used to help the deployment of activities through
TPM programs based on these pillars. Among the tools used by TPM to analyze and
solve equipment and process related problems are Pareto Analysis, Statistical Process
Control (SPC control charts, etc), problem solving techniques like brainstorming,
cause and effect diagrams and 5M Approach, visual control like OPLs, Poka-Yoke
Systems, Autonomous Maintenance, Continuous Improvement, 5S, Setup Time
Reduction, Waste Minimization, Bottleneck Analysis, Recognition and Reward Program
and Simulation (Jostes and Helms, 1994).

One of the tools mentioned is 5S which is based on a Japanese approach to

establishing and maintaining an organized and effective workplace. It is often used
during plant cleaning activities and is a systematic method to organize, order, clean, and
standardize a workplace and keep it that way (Productivity, 1999). The elements of 5S
include Seiri (Organization), Sieton (Orderliness), Seiso (Cleaning), Seiketsu
(Cleanliness) and. Shitsuke (Discipline) (Willmott 1994). Table 2.3 shows the key
activities to be deployed for effective 5S implementation at workplace.

Another important visual control tool that is used in autonomous maintenance is

One Point Lesson (OPL). An OPL is a 5 to 10 minute self-study lesson which is visual
in nature that is drawn up by team members and covers a single aspect of equipment or
machine structure, functioning, or method of inspection (JIPM, 1997). One-point lessons
are one of the most powerful tools for transferring skills. The teaching technique helps
people learn a specific skill or concept in a short period of time through the extensive
use of visual images. The skill being taught is typically presented, demonstrated,

16
discussed, reinforced, practiced, and documented in thirty minutes or less. Single-point
lessons are especially effective in transferring the technical skills required for a
production operator to assume minor maintenance responsibilities (Robinson and
Ginder, 1995).

Table 2.3: Key activities for effective 5S implementation at the workplace (Ahuja and
Khamba, 2008)

Japanese nomenclature

English 5S

English 5C

Features

Seir

Sort

Clear

Sort out un necessary items from the

workplace and discard them

Seiton

Set in order Configure

Arrange necessary items in good order so

that they can be easily picked up for use

Seiso

Shine

Clean the workplace completely to make

it free from dust, dirt and clutter

Seiketsu

Standardize Conformity

Maintain high standard of house keeping

and workplace organization

Shitsuke

Sustain

Train and motivate people to follow good

housekeeping disciplines autonomously

Clean and check

Custom and practice

Team activities in TPM are usually conducted by teams known as small group
activity (SGA). A small group is any cross-functional work team charged with working
together to improve plant performance by solving problems and managing specific plant
areas, machines, or processes (Robinson and Ginder, 1995). TPM SGAs do not operate
independently, but rather perform TPM activity consistent with the overall TPM plan.
Although these teams can perform autonomously, they do so under the existing
organization framework (Suzuki, 1994).

17

2.2.3 Overall Equipment Effectiveness

Performance of a productive system is measured using a core quantitative metric

called OEE or Overall Equipment Effectiveness. OEE is often used as the core metric of
measuring TPM implementation program (Shirose, 1989). OEE methodology
incorporates metrics from all equipment manufacturing guidelines into a measuring
system that helps manufacturing and operations teams improve equipment performance
and therefore reduce equipment cost of ownership (Ravishankar et al., 1992).

Nakajima (1988) stated that OEE is an effective way of analyzing the efficiency
of a single machine or an integrated manufacturing system. It is a function of
availability, performance rate and quality rate which are actually measures of equipment
losses. Nakajima (1988) defines the losses into six major categories which are
breakdown losses, setup and adjustment losses, idling and minor stoppage losses, defect
and rework losses, speed losses and start-up losses. Based on the above losses, OEE is
calculated by obtaining the product of availability of equipment, performance efficiency
of the process and rate of quality products as shown below (Dal et al., 2000). The
calculation of OEE by considering the impact of the six major losses on the production
system is also indicated in Figure 2.4 (McKellen, 2005).

OEE = Availability (A) x Performance efficiency (P) x Quality Rate (Q)

where:

100

18
Loading time is the planned time available per day (or month) for production operations
and downtime is the total time during which the system is no operating because of
equipment failures, setup/adjustment requirement etc.

100

Processed amount refers to the number of items processed per day (or month) and
operating time is the difference between loading time and downtime.

100

Defect amount represents the number of items rejected due to quality defects of one type
or another and requires rework or become scrapped.

Figure 2.4: Calculation of OEE based on six major production losses

19

However, the definition of effectiveness losses is not consistent among the

Japanese authors. Nakajima (1988) originally defined six Big Equipment Losses which
was mentioned previously and was used to calculate OEE. Suzuki (1994) suggests
Eight Major Plant Losses (Shutdown, Production Adjustment, Equipment Failure,
Process Failure, Normal Production Loss, Abnormal Production Loss, Quality Defects,
and Reprocessing). Shirose (1989) on the other hand expanded the number of losses to
sixteen to include human effectiveness losses such as Management Losses, Motion
Losses, and Arrangement Losses, Loss due to Lack of Automated Systems, and
Monitoring and Adjustment Losses. Table 2.4 describes the various losses in context of
manufacturing organizations.

Using OEE metrics and establishing a disciplined reporting system help an

organization to focus on parameters critical to its success (Ahuja and Khamba, 2007).
However, OEE from the definition of TPM does not take into account all factors that
reduced capacity utilization such as planned downtime, lack of labor, lack or material
input, etc (Lungberg, 1998). Dal et al., (2000) also describe that OEE level of setting
differs from one industry to another. OEE is more suitable for high volume processbased manufacturing where capacity utilization is of high priority and stoppages are
expensive in terms of lost capacity.

Anyhow, OEE offers a measurement tool to evaluate equipment corrective action

methods and ensure permanent productivity improvement. A comparison between
expected and current OEE measure can provide a platform on which manufacturing
organizations to continuously improve their manufacturing systems (Wang, 2006).
However, OEE requires a wider classification of losses for better understanding of
machine utilization. Tailor made OEE for different industries are also required due to
differences in levels of OEE measurement in each industry (Chan et al., 2005).

20
Table 2.4: Sixteen major losses impeding manufacturing performance (Ahuja and
Khamba, 2008)

Seven major losses that impede overall equipment efficiency

1
Breakdown/failure loss
Losses due to failure. Types of failure include sporadic function-stopping
failures and function-reducing failures in which the function of the equipment
drops below normal levels
2
Set-up and adjustment loss
Stoppage losses that accompany set-up changeovers. These losses are caused
by changes in operating condition. Equipment changeovers require a period of
shutdown so that the tools can be exchanged
3

Reduced speed loss

Idling and minor stoppages loss

Defect and rework loss

Start-up loss

Tool changover loss

Losses due to actual operating speed failing below the designed speed of the
equipment
Losses that occur when the equipment temporarily stops or idles due to sensor
actuation or jamming of the work. The equipment will operate normally
through simple measures (removal of work and resetting)
Volume/time losses due to defect and rework (disposal defects), financial
losses due to product downgrading and time losses required to repair defective
products to turn them into excellent products
When starting production, the losses that arise until the equipment start-up,
running-in and production-processing conditions stabilize
Stoppage losses caused by changing the cutting blades due to breakage or
caused by changing the cutting blades when the service life of the grinding
stone, cutter or bite has been reached

Losses that impede equipment loading time

8
Planned shutdown loss
Losses that arise from planned equipment stoppages at the production planning
level in order to perform periodic inspection and statutory inspection

Five major losses that impede worler efficiency

9
Distribution/logistic loss
Losses ocurring due to inability to automate, e.g. automated loading/unloading
leading to manpower reduction not implemented
10 Line organization loss
These are waiting time losses involving multi-process and multi-stand
operators and line-balance losses in conveyor work
11 Measurement and adjustment loss Work losses from frequent measurement and adjustment in order to prevent the
occurrence and outflow of quality defects
12 Management loss
Waiting losses that are caused by management such as waiting for materials,
waiting for tools, waiting for instructions, waiting for repair of breakdowns, etc
13

Motion-related loss

Losses due to violation of motion economy, losses that occur as a result of skill
differences and walking losses attributed to an inefficient layout

Three malor losses that impede efficient use of production resources

14 Yield loss
Material losses due to differences in weight of the input materials and weight
of the quality products
15 Consumables (jig, tool, die) loss Financial losses (expenses incurred in production, regrinding, renitriding, etc.)
which occur with production or repairs of dies, jigs and tools due to aging
beyond service life or breakage
16 Energy loss
Losses due to ineffective utilization of input energy (electricity, gas, fuel, oil,
etc.) in processing

21

2.3

TPM Implementation Steps

Following the process and fully completing all the requirements of a step or
process before going on to the next one is a key to a successful TPM effort (Ames,
2003). A driving consideration for this structured approach is the fact that successful
TPM implementation takes three to five years, (Nakajima, 1988; Ames, 2003) with an
average of three and a half years from introduction to achievement of TPM Prize
winning results (Wang and Lee, 2001). For the most part, participants talked about TPM
as a long-term process, not a quick fix for todays problems (Horner, 1996).

However, care must taken when applying cook-book style TPM in organizations
which has its own problems due to variability factors such as highly variable skills
associated with the workforce under different situations, age differences of the
workgroups, varied complexities of the production systems and equipments, altogether
different organization cultures, objectives policies and environments and the differences
in prevailing status of maintenance competencies (Wireman, 2004).

There were many approaches in implementing TPM from various researches and
consultants but most organizations follow a strict JIPM-TPM implementation process by
following Nakajimas TPM model. Nakajima first developed the classic twelve-step
TPM implementation process that has been the foundation for TPM implementation
since 1984 (Nakajima, 1989). These twelve steps support the basic development
activities, which constitute the minimal requirements for development of TPM (Ahuja
and Khamba, 2008). Table 2.5 shows the various step involve in TPM implementation
methodology.

Numerous TPM practitioners have suggested their own version of a TPM

implementation process. However, most are a variation or simplification of the
Nakajima model. For example, Productivity, Inc. proposes a TPM rollout plan that

22
incorporates and expands on the Nakajima TPM implementation process as shown in
Figure 2.5 (Productivity, 1999).

Table 2.5: Twelve step TPM implementation methodology

Phase of implementation TPM implementation steps

Activities involved

Stage preparation

Declaration by top management

decision to introduce TPM
Launch education and campaign to
introduce TPM

Declare in TPM in-house seminar

Carried in organization magazine
Managers: trained in seminar/camp at
each level
General employees: seminar meetings
using slides

Create organizations to promote

TPM
Establish basic TPM policies and
goals
Formulate master plan for TPM
development

Committees and sub-commitees

Preliminary
implementation
TPM implementation

Stabilization

Hold TPM kick-off

Establishment of a system for
improving the efficiency of
production system
Improve effectiveness of each
piece of equipment

Benchmarks and targets evolved

Prediction of effects
Develop step-by-step TPM
implementation plan
Framework of srategies to be adopted
over time
Invite suppliers, related companies,
affiliated companies
Pursuit of improvement of efficiency in
production department
Project team activities and small group
activities (SGA) at production centers

Develop an autonomous
maintenance (AM) program
Develop a scheduled maintenance
program for the maintenance
department
Conduct training to improve
operation and maintenance skills

Step system, diagnosis, qualification

certification
Improve maintenance, periodic
maintenance, predictive maintenance

Develop initial equipment

management program level

Development of easy to manufacture

products and easy to operate production
equipment
Setting conditions without defectives and
its maintenance and control
Support for production, improving
efficiency of related sectors

Group education of leaders and training

members

Establish quality maintenance

organization
Establish systems to improve
efficiency of admistration and
other indirect departments
Establish systems to control safety, Creation of systems for zero accidents
health and environment
and zero pollution cases
Perfect TPM implementation
Sustaining maintenance improvement
efforts
Challenging higher targets
Applying for TPM awards

23

Figure 2.5: TPM rollout plan

Hartmann also provides another TPM implementation process that simplifies the
Nakajima implementation model (Hartmann, 1992).

Phase I Improve equipment to its highest required level of performance and

availability (Focused Improvement):

24

Determine existing equipment performance and availability current OEE;

Determine equipment condition;

Determine current maintenance performed on equipment;

Analyze equipment losses;

Develop and rank equipment improvement needs and opportunities;

Develop setup and changeover improvement needs and opportunities;

Execute improvement opportunities as planned and scheduled activity;

Check results and continue with improvement as required.

Phase II Maintain equipment at its highest required level of performance and

availability

(Autonomous

Maintenance,

Planned

Maintenance

and

Quality

Maintenance):

Develop planned maintenance, cleaning and lubrication requirements for each

machine;

Develop planned maintenance, cleaning and lubrication procedures;

Develop inspection procedures for each machine;

Develop planned maintenance, lubrication, cleaning and inspection systems,

including all forms and controls;

Develop planned maintenance manuals;

Execute planned maintenance, cleaning and lubrication as planned and scheduled

activities;

Check results and apply corrections to system as required.

Phase III Establish procedures to purchase new equipment and develop new processes
with a defined level of high performance and low life cycle cost (Maintenance
Prevention, Quality Maintenance):

Develop engineering specifications;

Get feedback from production operations based on current equipment

experience;

25

Get feedback from maintenance operations based on current equipment

experience;

Eliminate past problems in new equipment and process technology design;

Design in diagnostic capabilities with new equipment and processes;

Start training on new equipment and processes early (prior to deployment);

Accept and deploy new equipment and processes only it they meet or exceed
engineering specifications.

Besides that, Carannante et al. (1996) have proposed the development of the
eight step approach to the implementation of TPM involving system, measurement,
autonomous maintenance, housekeeping, continuous improvement, culture, training and
plant design. Bamber et al. (1999) have also suggested a six step TPM implementation
approach to help companies that require a renewed emphasis or vitality to an already
implemented but floundering TPM program, and emphasis upon creating a steering
organization; understanding the current situation; understanding the restraining forces
and the driving forces with production associates; developing and implementing plan
including milestone and measures of performance; implementation of the TPM plan;
review the implementation of the plan; and amend activities or milestones as necessary.

The TPM implementation process, at the highest level then, is simply

initialization, implementation, and institutionalization (Steinbacher and Steinbacher,
1993). Nevertheless, from the literature review, it has been observed, although there are
numerous models and methodologies that have been suggested by practitioners and
researches, organization worldwide are faced with stiff challenge of working out right
sequence of initiatives for effectively deploying TPM practices successfully, in the most
effective manner. Thus, it is important to study the right emphasis of TPM
implementation strategies or elements and its correlation with manufacturing
performance dimensions.

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

3.1

Study Procedure

Annually, the Japan Institute of Plant Maintenance (JIPM) gives out awards for
companies all around the world that have special achievement in TPM. Four out of the
five companies in Malaysia that have actually won an award for TPM from 1998 till
2009 are electrical and electronic manufacturers. Thus, this is one of the criteria that the
Electrical and Electronic Industries in Malaysia is set as the population to achieve the
objective of this study. This industry has also today attained world class capabilities and
is the largest contributor to the country manufacturing output, employment and exports
(MIDA, 2004). Besides that, electrical and electronic companies has always emphasize
on cleanliness in plant which is in line with TPMs goals and 5S housekeeping
principles.

Previous literature done on electrical and electronic industries in Malaysia

encompasses more of case study of TPM implementation such as Shamsuddin et al.
(2005) who did a case presentation of TPM implementation in a large semiconductor
manufacturing company. Other, include Madi (2006) and Eng and Shari (2003) did a
survey on quality improvement and Total Quality Management (TQM) of electrical and
electronic industries in Malaysia. However, there were none done to find suitable
operational strategy or TPM initiatives for the Malaysian manufacturing industry
specifically on the electrical and electronic industry which this paper will later

27
accomplish. Kathleen et al., (1999) found that the type of industry studied (Electronic,
Machinery and Automobile) did not provide a significant factor in terms of TPM
implementation or industry may not specifically represent factors that are important in
influencing the use of TPM. Mishra et al. (2008) states that TPM frameworks tend to be
generic in nature because the consultants who developed these frameworks will then be
providing maintenance consultancy to be applied uniformly across different types of
industries. Thus, this paper seeks to find out if this is true and that is there really no
difference of TPM strategies practices between electrical and electronic industry.
Besides that, the differences of TPM strategies practices between small medium industry
(SME) and large companies will also be explored as well.

An intensive literature review has been carried out and a questionnaire survey
was developed from this review. They are then validated through peer review from the
supervisor, academicians, consultants and practitioners from the industry. Before
sending out of questionnaires, it will be pre-tested on a representative sample from the
industry in order to ensure it is relevant to the objective of the study. For example,
earlier pilot survey runs were commented by experts to be too long which would
discourage respondents from answering the survey. Therefore, efforts were made to
reduce further the length of the survey. The TPM questionnaires (Appendix A) were
then sent to a sample of 240 companies randomly selected from the Directory of the
Federation of Malaysian Manufacturers (FMM) which is a subset of over 1240 electrical
and electronic companies in Malaysia (MIDA, 2004). Better response from survey
participants could perhaps be expected from world class companies or Japanese-owned
plant (Chin et al., 2000). This could include companies in Malaysia that have previously
won TPM awards for excellence from the year 1998 till present. Figure 3.1 shows the
methodology used for this project.

28

Identification of problem
& defining objective and
scope of study

Intensive literature review

Identifying important
elements of TPM &
forming of model

Questionnaires developed
& target population
identified
Questionnaires pre-testing
and validation

Finalization of
questionnaires and
sending out to participant

Data collection, analyses

of data and analyses of
results

Evaluating of TPM strategies/element emphasis in

Malaysia and their contribution towards manufacturing
performance

Figure 3.1: Methodology used for this study

29
3.2

TPM Model

This section will identify the components of the elements or strategies of TPM
and manufacturing performance dimension. Each component will be studied in detail
together with the theory that supports it. The relationship between these TPM elements
and manufacturing performance will be analysed to develop an understanding of
contribution of TPM implementation element emphasis on manufacturing performance
dimension. Figure 3.2 shows the proposed model for evaluating the relationship between
TPM elements/strategies and manufacturing performance.

Manufacturing
performance
dimension

TPM
Elements/Strategies

1. Top Management Leadership, B1

(Tsang & Chan, 2000; Patterson,
1996; Bamber et al., 1999)

C1. Cost

2. Planned Maintenance
Management,B2.1 (Kathleen, et
al., 2001) & Focused
Improvement, B2.2

C3. Delivery

3. Autonomous Maintenance, B3.1

& Training Approach, B3.2
(Tsang & Chan, 2000;
Shamsuddin et al., 2005)

Figure 3.2: TPM Model

C2. Quality

C4. Productivity
(Nakajima, 1989;
Skinner, 1969;
Schroeder, 1993)

30
3.2.1 Total Productive Maintenance Elements/Strategies

According to Bamber et al. (1999), there is a complexity and divergence of TPM

programs adopted throughout history. In Japan, early TPM programs follows a strict
implementation process by Japan Institute of Plant Maintenance (JIPM) which led to
many plants winning TPM awards (Nakajima, 1988). From then on, many literatures can
be found on TPM framework model such as Kathleen et al. (2001) who have
investigated the relationship between TPM and manufacturing performance through
structural equation modeling and Ireland and Dale (2001) who has elaborate implication
of TPM in various manufacturing organization. TPM Club India has also produced
frameworks of TPM elements which only differ in naming from Nakajimas framework
(TPM Club India, 2003). Wiremen (1999), on the other hand, places importance on
maintenance prevention in his framework and also emphasis on training to improve the
skills of the people involved in TPM.

From this exhaustive literature review, five important TPM elements or strategies
have been derive in this present study. These five elements play a significant role in
contributing towards manufacturing performance of an organization and are listed as
follows:

1) Top management leadership (B1)

2) Planned maintenance management (B2.1) and focused improvement (B2.2)
3) Autonomous maintenance (B3.1) and training approach (B3.2)

The five TPM elements are core elements that are also found in Nakajimas eight
pillars of TPM (Nakajima, 1989) but more closely resembles Yeomans and Millington
(1997)s five strategic pillars; the only difference is the replacement of maintenance
prevention element (more focus towards design activities during planning and
constructing of new equipments and many companies lack the data to pursue this goal
(Wiremen, 1991)) with the top management leadership element.

31
Top management commitment and leadership (B1) are crucial to the success of
effective TPM implementation. Senior management must show its commitment to TPM
by devoting time and allocating resources to create and sustain the required cultural
change and also to educate its employees (Tsang and Chan, 2000). Tsang and Chan
(2000) also mentioned that the pursuit of sustainable TPM requires a change of
employees attitude and values, which takes time to accomplish. Thus, through planning
and preparation by management are required for successful implementation of TPM
(Lycke, 2000). Besides that, top management must also be supportive, understanding
and committed towards various kind of TPM activities in order to successfully
implement TPM (Patterson, 1996). Bamber et al. (1999) wrote that the major obstacle in
implementing TPM in UK was the lack of top management commitment to follow
through which resulted in many organizations to struggle when attempting to
implementing TPM.

Ames (2003) went even further and states that the major issue to successful TPM
implementation is manager participation, not just support or commitment, but being
fully involved in determining strategy, learning the process by doing, coaching others,
and assessing progress. According to him, the top-level managers set the high level TPM
policies and objectives, create the TPM Promotion Office, and sponsor the TPM
Steering Committee. They must also assign the resources to make TPM successful. That
success relies, in part, in assigning top performers to roles within the TPM Promotions
Office (Ames, 2003). Top management plays the crucial role in TPM implementation of
leading the paradigm shift. The type of change called for in TPM is especially difficult
because in many respects it pervades the fundamental nature of the companys work
culture. It reaches through and affects the entire organization (Society of Manufacturing
Engineers, 1995). In short, leadership, leading the organization to a vision using a
defined business strategy and tactical directions through all levels to the plant floor,
makes TPM work (Williamson, 2006).

32
The ability of an organization to perform basic maintenance activities or planned
maintenance (B2.1) effectively in an organized and efficient way determines the success
of implementing TPM programs (Ahuja and Khamba, 2008). Planned maintenance
management aims to make the equipment reliable with zero failures and quality defects
and to do so efficiently, at a minimum cost (Shingo, 2007). It consists of maintenance
practices and approaches like preventive maintenance (PM), time-based maintenance
(TBM), condition-based maintenance (CBM) and corrective maintenance (CM).
Preventive maintenance is a kind of physical check up on the equipment to prevent
equipment breakdown and prolonged equipment service. PM comprises of maintenance
activities that are undertaken after a specified period of time of machine used (Herbaty,
1990). During this phase, the maintenance function is established and time based
maintenance (TBM) activities are generally accepted (Pai, 1997). The preventive work
undertaken may include equipment lubrication, cleaning, parts replacement, tightening,
and adjustment. The production equipment may also be inspected for signs of
deterioration during preventive maintenance work (Telang, 1998).

Condition-Based Maintenance is a form of preventive maintenance that is

scheduled by actual variation or degradation that is measured on the equipment.
Examples of monitored equipment parameters include vibration analysis, ultrasonic
inspection, wear particle analysis, infrared thermograph, video imaging, water quality
analysis, motor-condition analysis, jigs/fixtures/test gauges, and continuous condition
monitoring (Leflar, 2001). Corrective maintenance is introduced in 1957 on which the
concept to prevent equipment failures is further expanded to be applied to the
improvement of equipment so that the equipment failure can be eliminated (improving
the reliability) and the equipment can be easily maintained (improving equipment
maintainability) (Steinbacher and Steinbacher, 1993). The primary difference between
corrective and preventive maintenance is that a problem must exist before corrective
actions are taken. The purpose of corrective maintenance is improving equipment
reliability, maintainability, and safety; design weaknesses (material, shapes); existing
equipment undergoes structural reform; to reduce deterioration and failures, and to aim
at maintenance-free equipment (Higgins et al., 1995).

33

Planned maintenance (B2.1) typically requires discipline planning process for

maintenance task, good information tracking systems to capture data for problem
solving and schedule compliance as an indicator of the health of the planned
maintenance management system (Kathleen et al., 2001). The key to effective Planned
Maintenance is to have a PM plan for every tool. The PM plan is based on the history
and analysis of failure modes to determine preventive practices. The PM plan consists of
five elements which are as follows (Leflar, 1999):

1. A set of checklists for PM execution.

2. A schedule for every PM cycle.
3. Specification for every PM cycle.
4. Procedure for every checklist item.
5. Maintenance and parts logs (equipment maintenance history) for every machine.

Focused improvement (B2.2) complements this by using why-why and P-M

analyses to eliminate losses and improve equipment reliability (Shingo, 2007). Focused
improvement includes all activities that maximize the overall effectiveness of
equipment, processes, and plants through uncompromising elimination of losses and
improvement of performance (Suzuki, 1994). The driving concept of Focused
Improvement is Zero Losses. Maximizing equipment effectiveness requires the complete
elimination of failures, defects and other negative phenomena in other words, the
wastes and losses incurred in equipment operation (Nakajima, 1989). Focused
Improvement has been, and still is, the primary methodology for productivity
improvement in the fabrication process and the key metric for Focused Improvement is
Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE)

(Thomas 2003). Focused Improvement

includes three basic improvement activities. First, the equipment is restored to its
optimal condition. Then equipment productivity loss modes (causal factors) are
determined and eliminated. The learning that takes place during restoration and loss

OEE basic concept and calculation has been discussed previously in literature review

34
elimination then provide the TPM program a definition of optimal equipment condition
that will be maintained (and improved) through the life of the equipment (Suehiro,
1987).

Autonomous maintenance (AM) goals are to develop equipment competent

operators and also to empower operators to look after their own equipment (Shingo,
2007). TPM through AM (B3.1) enables operator to learn more on their equipment
function, identify common problems and how to prevent them through early detection
and treating of abnormal conditions (Kathleen et al., 2001). TPM also embraces
empowerment to production operators, establishing a sense of ownership in their daily
operating equipment. This sense of ownership is an important factor that underpins TPM
to its continual success with every operator being responsible to ensure their machine is
clean and maintained (Tsang and Chan, 2000). AM enables operators to perform basic
maintenance task such as housekeeping task which includes cleaning and inspection,
lubrication, precision check and other light maintenance task. It can be broken down into
five Ss seiri (organization), seiton (tidiness), seiso (sweeping), seiketsu (sanitizing)
and shitsuke (self-discipline) (Nakijima, 1988).

TPM accomplished maximization of equipment effectiveness through total

employee involvement and incorporate the use of Autonomous Maintenance in small
group activities to improve on equipment reliability, maintainability and productivity
(Chen, 1997). Autonomous Maintenance involves the participation of each and every
operator, each maintaining his own equipment and conducting activities to keep it in the
proper condition and running correctly. It is the most basic of the eight pillars of TPM. If
autonomous maintenance activities are insufficient, the expected results will not
materialize even if the other pillars of TPM are upheld (Komatsu, 1999).

There are typically seven steps in AM program where promotion to the next
steps require certain criteria to be met and audits for confirmation. Before all that, there
is the initial or preparation stage where operators find out for themselves that bad things

35
happen as a result of forced deterioration of equipment. This preparatory step is
designed to make operators think about the causes of forced deterioration and
understand the reason for them to embark on autonomous maintenance program (Shingo,
2008). The first step is the initial cleaning step which aims to completely eradicate dust
and dirt from the main body of the equipment and its surrounding to prevent forced
deterioration as well as detect and rectify latent minor equipment defects through the
cleaning process. This is a crucial step at which cleaning is inspection concept is put
into practice. It is not a matter of just making the equipment clean on the surface but
through the process of cleaning exposes abnormalities such as leak, loose fastening or
damaged parts (Shingo, 2008).

In step two, ways are found to combat sources of dirt, leaks and so on, and
improve accessibility to areas that are hard to clean, lubricate, tighten or inspect. This is
a crucial process that nurtures the seeds of improvement, as operators find ways to
improve the situation on their own initiative. It allows them to derive real pleasure from
the process of improvement and the results attained and to share a sense of achievement
with their supervisors and fellow team members (Shingo, 2008). Step three is also
known as provisional AM standards where operators use their experience in Steps 1 and
2 to clarify their ideal conditions for their equipment. Besides that, standards are devised
for the actions necessary to sustain those conditions (Suzuki, 1994).

While Steps 1 to 3 focuses on detecting abnormalities using the five senses, step
four (General Inspection) takes this even further. It aims to give operators a thorough
understanding of the functions and structure of their equipment and develop their ability
to perform routine maintenance backed by relevant logic and knowledge (JIPM, 1997).
Next, step five aims to sustain and further raise the levels of reliability, maintainability
and quality thus achieved. This entails reviewing the provisional standards for cleaning,
checking and lubrication developed so far, with the aim of working them up into a
definitive set of efficient and comprehensive standard (Shingo, 2008). The aim of step
six, in addition to consolidating what has been done so far, is to expand the operators
role to cover the equipments surroundings as well as the equipment itself, continue to

36
drive down losses closer to zero and put the finishing touches to the teams ability to
manage their own work (JIPM, 1997).

The last step seven (Full Self-Management), will consolidate all the activities
undertaken in Steps 1 to 6. By this stage, the operators should have gained real
confidence about the changes they have made in the equipment and the workplace and
their own self development and understand the positive results these changes have
produced (Shingo, 2008). The aim of step seven is to keep on encouraging them to see
improvement as an endless process in which they can and must take initiative. It should
be used as an opportunity to reinforce the sense of participation and solidarity that their
team activities will have developed and allow them to go on exercising their creativity
and build up stronger emotional bonds with their colleagues and a solid sense of
commitment to their workplace and the work they do there (JIPM, 1997). Operators
would no longer rely on external inputs but be totally autonomous and independent,
drawing on their own resources to drive their actions and fully capable of making the
required contribution to the companys policy and objectives on their own (Shingo,
2008).

The final TPM element that would be covered is Education and training (B3.2)
which involves not only transforming organization culture and redefining of roles but
also skills and technical upgrade for everyone in operation, maintenance and support
group (Tsang and Chan, 2000) According to Tsang and Chan (2000), training should be
provided even before TPM is implemented on the shop floor. Training and educational
issues has become one of the critical factors to establish successful TPM implementation,
where proper education begins as early as during TPM introduction and initial
preparation stage (Blanchard, 1997). Training and education provide the necessary skill,
knowledge and the ability to make it happen (Saylor, 1992). Wiremen (1991) also
emphasized on training to improve the skills of the people involved in TPM and have
classified it into two major components. One is soft skill training, such as how to work
as teams, diversity training and communication skills. The second is technical training,

37
which ensures that the employees have the technical knowledge to make improvements
to the equipments (Wiremen, 1991).

In order to evaluate the extent of TPM implementation elements in electrical and

electronic industries in Malaysia, a five point Likert scale will be used in this study
(Rating mechanism: 1 no emphasis at all, 2 very little emphasis, 3- some emphasis, 4
reasonable emphasis, 5 extensive emphasis).

3.2.2 Manufacturing Performance Dimensions

The success of a TPM implementation program does not only depend on a

formal implementation of various TPM initiatives in the organization but also requires
ensuring the laid out programs are moving in the right direction and the quantifiable
benefits and results can be derived as a result of the implementation of TPM (Ahuja and
Khamba, 2008). Shingo (2007) said that peoples attitude and behavior (regarding TPM)
will not change until they see the results and benefits of TPM implementation. When
peoples thinking change, defects and breakdowns starts to be seen as something to be
ashamed of and when peoples behavior change, they strive to make improvements and
manage their work more carefully (Shingo, 2007).

Shamsuddin et al. (2005) states in his paper that the results of TPM
implementation towards an organization can be in terms of intangible gains like
customer impression and working environment and tangible gains which may cover a
host of business functions in an organization. Nakajima (1998) also listed six categories
of achievements arising from strategic TPM programs such as productivity, quality, cost,
delivery, safety and morale. Suzuki (1994) too cited in his paper the PQCDSM
(Productivity, Quality, Cost, Delivery, Safety, and Morale) improvements for early TPM
implementers in Japan. A common theme in operational strategy research like TPM for
example is describing the manufactures choice of emphasis among key capabilities or in

38
short manufacturing performance (Ward et al., 1995). In this paper, the four basic
dimensions of plant manufacturing performance that are going to be studied are as
follows (Skinner, 1969; Schroeder, 1993; Ward et al., 1995):

1) Cost (C1)
2) Quality (C2)
3) Delivery (C3)
4) Productivity (C4)

Cost is indicated by manufacturing cost like unit costs, material and overhead
cost and also inventory cost. Manufacturing cost is measured by the manufacturing cost
of goods sold as a percentage of sales. The measurement of inventory cost include
inventory turnover ratio where a high turnover ratio indicates a low cost position.
Quality is measured as a percentage of good products that are produced according to
specification. Manufacturing quality priority can also be measured by degree of
emphasis on activities to reduce defect rates, improve vendor quality, improve product
performance and reliability, or activities related to achieving an international quality
standard, ISO 9000. Delivery performance measures include emphasis on activities
intended to increase either delivery reliability or delivery speed or percentage of orders
delivered on time. Finally, productivity measures include improved machine efficiency,
availability and reliability; reducing inputs such as capital and material while increasing
output of finished goods produced.

In order to evaluate the manufacturing performance dimensions accrued as a

result of effective emphasis of TPM implementation, a five point Likert scale will be
used in this study (Rating mechanism: 1 no correlation at all, 2 nominal impact, 3some impact, 4 reasonable impact, 5 extensive impact/correlation).

39
3.3

Reliability and Validity of Questionnaire Survey

Reliability of a survey is very important because they are measurements that

imply trustworthiness in any research investigation. According to Litwin (1995),
reliability is a measure of how reproducible the survey instruments data. The various
categories of TPM strategies and elements and manufacturing performance dimensions
will be evaluated to ascertain the reliability of the input and output data collected
through the questionnaires using reliability test known as Cronbachs coefficient alpha.
Cronbachs coefficient alpha measures the internal consistent reliability among a group
of items combined to form a single scale. It ranges from 0 to 1, with higher values
indicating higher level of internal consistency. A Cronbachs alpha value of 0.7 is
considered acceptable (Nunnally, 1978) and a value of 0.60 is considered satisfying for a
relatively new measurement instrument (Sakakibara et al., 1997). Validity is a scale on
which a survey is able to measure the underlying concepts it is designed to research on.
The validity of the factors for each TPM elements will be tested using confirmatory
factor analysis approach (Bagozzi, 1980). Besides that, principal component analysis
will also be performed and items that do not load into a single factor will be eliminated
and analysis re-performed. The Eigen value of each factor is considered satisfactory if
they are greater than 1.0 and acceptable if they are greater than 0.5 (Nunnally, 1978).

CHAPTER 4

SURVEY RESULTS & DISCUSSION

4.1

Introduction

This chapter presents the results collected from the survey which were sent to a
sample of 240 companies randomly selected from the Directory of the Federation of
Malaysian Manufacturers (FMM) which is a subset of over 1240 electrical and
electronic companies in Malaysia (MIDA, 2004). Respondent for each of these
companies comprises of directors, general managers (GM), TPM coordinators, quality
managers, engineers or personnel assigned by the company to be most suitable to answer
the survey questionnaires. Although initial response rate was not encouraging, efforts
were made to increase response by sending follow up emails and personally calling up
the relevant personnel in respective companies. As a result, the final response rate is
12.5 % based on 30 valid responses. This is considered reasonable because of similar
response rate of surveys done in Malaysia such as Jusoh et al. (2008) and Ahmad and
Hassan (2003) which obtain 12.3% and 11.5% respectively. Besides that, Eng and Shari
(2003) also had a response rate around 24.2% for their study in Malaysia. The responses
were then analyses using SPSS (PASW) Version 18 statistical package and are tabulated
in the following pages.

41

4.2

General Profile of the Respondent

4.2.1 Size of the Company

The first aspect analyzed is the general profile of the respondent. One of the
important information is the breakdown of respondent based on the size of the
companies which is shown in Table 4.1. This is important because the differences in
TPM strategies emphasis between small and medium industry and large industry in
Malaysia will be studied later. A large portion (76.7 %) of the respondent is from large
size companies which comprises of more than 150 employees. Large companies
typically cover two categories from 151 to 1000 employees which is about 20 % while
companies with more than 1000 employees is 56.7 %. Next, 13.3 % of the respondent
comprises of medium size companies having 51 to 150 employees while small
companies with less than 50 employees constituted about 10 % total. Thus, small
medium industries or also known as SMEs represents about 23.3 % of total percentage
of respondents while the remaining 76.7 % being large industries.

Table 4.1: Breakdown of respondent in terms of their size of industry

Size of company
(No of employees)
Small (50 or less)
Medium (51 to 150)
Large (151 to 1000)
Large (More than 1000)
Total

No of
Percent Percent
respondent
(%)
(%)
3
4
6
17
30

10.0
13.3
20.0
56.7
100.0

23.3
76.7
100.0

42

4.2.2

Type of Industry

The second aspect is the type of industry which in this study comprises of two
types; electrical and electronic industry. The types of industry can basically be
categories based on the products they manufacture. For example, an electronic industry
can be divided into two subcategories; Consumer Electronics which

manufacture

colour television receivers, audio visual products such as digital versatile disc (DVD)
players/recorders, home theatre systems, blu-ray, mini disc, electronics games consoles
and digital cameras (MIDA, 2004). The sector is represented by many renowned
Japanese and Korean companies, which have contributed significantly towards the rapid
growth of the sector (MIDA, 2004). Next subcategory is Electronic Components which
consists of semiconductor devices, passive components, printed circuits and other
electronic components such as media, substrates and connectors (MIDA, 2004).

On the other hand, the electrical industry manufactures products such as

household electrical appliances, wire and cables and electrical industrial equipment. The
major electrical products produced in our country are household appliances such as airconditioners, refrigerators, washing machines, vacuum cleaners and other electrical
appliances (MIDA, 2004). Table 4.2 shows the breakdown of respondent based on the
type of industry. 63.3 % of the respondents were from the electronics industry while
36.7 % were from the electrical industry.

Table 4.2: Breakdown of respondent based on types of industry

Industry
Electronics
Electrical
Total

Frequency Percent
(%)
19
63.3
11
36.7
30
100.0

43

4.2.3 Number of Years of TPM Implementation

An important criterion in determining the state of Total Productive Maintenance

(TPM) in Malaysian companies is through the number of years of TPM implementation.
It also indicates the experience and maturity of the companies in TPM application
(Figure 4.1). 16.7 % of the total respondents have never implemented TPM before while
10 % have implemented TPM before but there have been a relapse due to various
reasons. Besides that, 30 % of total respondents are in the introductory phase of TPM
with less than 3 years of implementation while 6.7 % are in the stabilization phase of
TPM between 3 to 5 years of implementation. A large portion (36.7 %) of the
respondents has long experiences with TPM and this beckons well for the future of TPM
in Malaysian companies. This is reflected in the number of years of TPM
implementation with many companies having more than 5 years of TPM implementation.

100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0

Percent (%)

36.7

30.0
16.7
10.0

None

TPM
implemented
previously but
there's been a
relapsed

6.7

Less than 3
years

3 to 5 years

More than 5
years

Years of TPM Implementation

Figure 4.1: Number of years of TPM implementation

44

4.3

Reliability Test

Reliability analysis or also known as internal consistency was performed to

access the reliability of the measurements (nine constructs) depicting the degree to
which they indicate a common latent (unobserved) construct. It relates to the extent to
which an experiment, test or any measuring procedure yields the same results on
repeated trials (Cramer, 1998). Cronbachs Alpha () is commonly used for this purpose,
where values of alpha range from between 0 and 1.0, with higher values indicating
higher reliability. Thus, Cronbachs Alpha values for the various categories of TPM
elements/strategies and manufacturing performance dimension were calculated to
ascertain the reliability of the input and output data collected from the survey
questionnaire.

The alpha values range from 0.777 to 0.962 as shown in Table 4.3, which
indicates an internal consistency with the alpha value of more than 0.70, so no items
were dropped from each variable. These also indicate the significantly high reliability of
data for various inputs and output categories and are a reliable measure of construct.

Table 4.3: Internal consistency test results

Factor

TPM elements / strategis

B1
B2.1
B2.2
B3.1
B3.2

Top management leadership

Planned maintenance management
Focussed improvement
Autonomous maintenance
Education and training
Manufacturing performance
dimension
Cost
Quality
Delivery
Productivity

C1
C2
C3
C4

No. of
items

Cronbach's
value

7
6
5
7
5

0.957
0.937
0.934
0.945
0.777

3
4
3
4

0.935
0.921
0.93
0.962

45

4.4

Validity Test

Construct validity is used to measure that the factor or items in question are
really able to measure the underlying construct that it is designed to measure. For this
study, the validity of the factors for each TPM elements will be tested using
confirmatory factor analysis approach (Bagozzi, 1980). Factor analysis is used for
structure detection which purpose is to examine underlying (or latent) relationship
between the variables. The factor analysis test used is the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure
of Sampling Adequacy (KMO) which is a statistic that indicates the proportion of
variance in the variables that might be caused by underlying factors and for construct
validity. For KMO test, high values (close to 1.0) generally indicate that a factor analysis
may be useful with the data. If the value is less than 0.50, the results of the factor
analysis probably won't be very useful. Kaiser (1974) also recommends either to collect
more data or to exclude certain variables if the value is below 0.5. For this study, the
KMO values for each factors range from 0.705 to 0.886 as seen in Table 4.4 which were
considered satisfactory.

Besides that, principal component analysis was also performed and items that do
not load into a single factor will be eliminated and analysis re-performed. As stated
previously, the Eigen value of each factor loading is considered satisfactory if they are
greater than 1.0 and acceptable if they are greater than 0.5 (Nunnally, 1978). All factor
loadings greater than 0.5 is also acceptable (Nunnally, 1978). As shown in Table 4.4, all
the factors Eigen values were more than 1.0 while the lowest factor loading for all
factors is 0.682 which is higher than the minimum acceptable value of 0.5. Thus, both
analyses done confirm that the survey instrument has construct validity.

46

Table 4.4: Validity test with principal component analysis and KMO test
Factor

TPM elements / strategies

Eigen
value

Items
deleted

Factor
loading

KMO
value

B1
B2.1

Top management leadership

Planned maintenance
management
Focussed improvement
Autonomous maintenance
Education and training
Manufacturing performance
dimension
Cost
Quality
Delivery
Productivity

5.383
4.262

None
None

0.746 - 0.957
0.682 - 0.949

0.847
0.746

3.968
5.349
3.174

None
None
None

0.790 - 0.947
0.788 - 0.931
0.821 - 0.962

0.752
0.886
0.705

2.435
2.544
2.681
3.628

None
None
None
None

0.830 - 0.968
0.729 - 0.838
0.905 - 0.973
0.946 - 0.972

0.762
0.736
0.768
0.797

B2.2
B3.1
B3.2

C1
C2
C3
C4

4.5

Level of Emphasis of TPM Elements/Strategies

After initial studying the background of the respondents and also performing
analyses on the reliability of the results, the next part analyses the level of emphasis of
TPM elements or strategies, which is the core of this survey. To further understand this,
a summary of the mean values for each TPM elements was calculated as shown in Table
4.5, where the higher the value indicating a higher level of emphasis.

Table 4.5: The mean of TPM elements/strategies

Factor

TPM elements / strategis

B1
B2.1
B2.2
B3.1
B3.2

Top management leadership

Planned maintenance management
Focussed improvement
Autonomous maintenance
Education and training
Average Mean

Overall
mean
2.962
3.577
3.507
3.448
3.187
3.336

Std Dev

Rank

1.205
0.968
1.263
1.157
1.184

5
1
2
3
4

47

The mean score for each TPM elements ranges from 2.962 and 3.577 and the
variability of each construct is almost similar with one another. From the table, the TPM
element which is placed most emphasis on by manufacturing companies in Malaysia is
planned maintenance management with the highest overall mean value of 3.577 while
the least emphasize is top management leadership with mean value of 2.962. This is
consistent with case studies done by Sim and Shari (2003), Shamsuddin et al. (2004) and
Cheng (2005) which shows that companies in Malaysia have at least a basic traditional
planned maintenance schedule and activities. Furthermore, the ability of an organization
to conduct basic maintenance activities effectively in an organized and efficient way will
determine the success of a TPM implementation program (Ahuja and Khamba, 2008).

TPM implementation requires a long term commitment to achieve the benefits of

improved equipment effectiveness (Sim and Shari, 2003). The pursuit of sustainable
TPM requires a change of employees attitude which takes time to accomplish (Tsang
and Chan, 2000). This could explain the lower emphasis of top management leadership
in Malaysian companies who could perhaps been expecting instant and companywide
gains after implementing TPM. This could also account for the 10 percent of the
respondent who had actually implemented TPM previously but there has been a relapsed
in implementation.
Besides that, some of the respondent also placed emphasis on other TPM element
not part of the five construct such as Safety, Health and Environment (SHE). This author
believes that elements like SHE comes with the implementation of the five TPM
elements covered in the survey. For example, Shingo (2007) states that during step 1 of
autonomous maintenance (B3.1), safety problems are identified together with other
problems. Planned maintenance aims to eliminate unexpected breakdown which
indirectly improves safety because equipment problems often lead to accidents, which
are often due to operators lack of experience in dealing with abnormalities or carrying
non-routine tasks (Shingo, 2007). Overall, the respondent companies places moderate
to intensive emphasis on the TPM elements/strategies with an average overall mean of
3.336

48

4.6

Evaluating of TPM Element Emphasis and their Contribution towards

Manufacturing Performance

4.6.1 Relationship between Factors

Based on the responses from the manufacturing industry in Malaysia, an

assessment has been made of the relationship between various TPM element emphases
and their contribution towards different manufacturing performance dimension. To show
this relationship, the bivariate correlation procedure is used to compute the Pearsons
correlation coefficient between various TPM element emphasis and manufacturing
performance dimension as shown in Table 4.6. It is useful to determine the strength and
direction of association between two scale variables. In this case, Pearson correlation is
worked out to define significant TPM element contributing towards realisation of
different manufacturing performance. Only pairs that are statistically significant at 1
percent level of significance are considered to have strong association with one another.

Table 4.6: Pearsons correlation between various TPM elements and manufacturing
performance dimension
C1
B1
B2.1
B2.2
B3.1
B3.2

0.691**
0.482**
0.393
0.707**
0.648**

C2

C3

C4

0.492**
0.740**
0.769**
0.440
0.643**

0.302
0.408
0.474**
0.32
0.559**

0.483**
0.678**
0.727**
0.372
0.619**

Note: **Correlation is significant at 0.01 level (two-tailed)

Where:
B1: Top management leadership

C1: Cost

B2.1: Planned maintenance management

C2: Quality

B2.2: Focussed improvement

C3: Delivery

B3.1: Autonomous maintenance

C4: Productivity

B3.2: Education and training

49

4.6.2 Discussion on Relationship between TPM Element Emphasis and

Manufacturing Performance

The Pearsons correlation results show that there exist significant association
between various TPM elements and their contribution towards manufacturing
performance. Top management leadership, commitment, organization structure and
motivational initiatives (B1) is essential towards contributing to manufacturing
performance of an organization in terms of overall cost saving (C1), high quality of its
products (C2) and even increased productivity of the plant (C4). Top Management plays
a crucial role in supporting the necessary techniques and providing advice and guidance
in altering processes (Bosman, 2000). Thus, only commitment by top management can
ensure the success of TPM implementation which will lead the organization to reap the
benefits that come with it.

Next, the results also show similar pattern with planned maintenance
management (B2.1) having significant contribution towards improving manufacturing
performance by lowering cost (C1), high levels of quality (C2) and increased
productivity (C4). The objective of Planned Maintenance is to establish and maintain
optimal equipment and process conditions (Suzuki, 1994). As defined by JIPM, devising
a planned maintenance system means raising output (no failures, no defects) which
reduces product cost, as well as improve quality of product and increasing plant
availability (machine availability) which indirectly affects productivity also.

Focussed Improvement (B2.2) on the other hand, shows significant relationship

with improving quality (C2), strong delivery performance (C3) and high level of
productivity (C4). This is due to the objective of Focussed Improvement which is Zero
Losses. Maximizing equipment effectiveness requires the complete elimination of
failures, defects, and other negative phenomena in other words, the wastes and losses
incurred in equipment operation (Nakajima, 1989). Education and training (B3.2) also
shows significant impact on all four manufacturing performance dimension in terms of

50

cost (C1), quality (C2), delivery (C3) and productivity (C4). The objective of Training
and Education is to create and sustain skilled operators able to effectively execute the
practices and methodologies established within the other TPM pillars (Leflar, 2003). It
also enables the upgrading and expanding of employees technical, problem solving and
team working skills (Tsang and Chang, 2003). Only by improving the workforce in the
organization, would we see improvement in manufacturing performance of the
organization. Training and Education focuses on establishing appropriate and effective
training methods, creating the infrastructure for training, and proliferating the learning
and knowledge of the other TPM pillars. Training and Education may be the most
critical of all TPM pillars for sustaining the TPM program in the long-term. A test of
TPM success is to look at organizational learning, TPM is about continual learning
(Leflar, 2003).

However, the TPM element Autonomous Maintenance (B3.1) shows only one
significant contribution towards manufacturing performance which is cost (C1). This is
to be expected because the benefits of autonomous maintenance are more intangible then
tangible. Suzuki (1994) defines some of the intangible results due to autonomous
maintenance which include self-management of shop-floor workers, improved
confidence of production workers, clean up of production and administrative areas, and
improved company image for customers. Autonomous maintenance also brings a higher
level of shop floor employee involvement (team activities) in improvement activity, and
greater employee empowerment (Ames, 2003). For example, it is hard to access the
tangible value of 5S activity (an autonomous maintenance tool) even though it is a
valuable and critical part of TPM process. This is because the activities are not centred
on results, but rather they emphasize peoples behavioural patterns, such as the
elimination of unnecessary items from the work environment or the cleaning and
neatening of equipment. Consequently, the activities are of a kind that makes
quantitative assessment of their effectiveness difficult (Takahashi and Osada, 1990).

51

Results have shown the each of the five TPM elements have strong association
with the improvement of manufacturing performance such as lower costs, higher quality
levels, faster delivery and increased productivity as shown in Figure 4.2. Some element
like autonomous maintenance shows more intangible rather than tangible benefits which
is also important to the organization as a whole. Thus, all of the five TPM elements have
to be emphasize on and not neglected in order to reap the benefits of a successful TPM
implementation program. Since implementing TPM is a strategic decision and mistakes
cannot afford to be made by managers, these five elements can act as a guideline for
organization wanting to implement TPM in their organization. This will ensure that all
important areas are covered and there is a standard structured implementation process
during the TPM implementation phase. At the same time, the improvement of
manufacturing performance or the benefits of TPM implementation must be recognised
by the organization (Robinson and Ginder, 1995; Cooke, 2000). According to Robinson
and Ginder (1995), for TPM to be successful, the improvement process must be
recognized as benefiting both the company and the worker It is important to identify
the critical elements of TPM and their impact on manufacturing performance because
many companies fail to invest in maintenance programs because they manage
maintenance by a budget and fail to see the strategic implication of a strong maintenance
program (Kathleen et al., 1999). Thus, this study could act as evidence to convince
management the importance of TPM implementation towards the organization.
TPM Elements/Strategies

B1.

Top management leadership

B2.1

Planned maintenance

Manufacturing
Performance

management

C1

Cost

B2.2

Focused Improvement

C2

Quality

B3.1

Autonomous maintenance

C3

Delivery

B3.2

Education and training

C4

Productivity

Figure 4.2: TPM relationship model

52

4.7

Test of Significant between Differences of Mean

4.7.1 Differences of TPM Element Practices between Electrical and Electronic

Industry

The first significant test is done to find out if there are any significant differences
of TPM elements practices between electrical and electronic industry. This is analyses
using a comparison t test to compare the mean between the samples. The first
hypotheses are as follows:

H0:

electrical

electronic;

i.e. there is no significant difference of each TPM

element emphasis between electrical and electronic industry

H1: electrical electronic; i.e. there is significant difference of each TPM element
emphasis between electrical and electronic industry

The null hypothesis assumes the two sets of scores (electrical and electronic) are
samples from the same population and therefore the two samples do not differ
significantly from each other because the sampling was random. However, the
alternative hypothesis states that the two sets of score do differ significantly.

The results of the t test can be seen in Table 4.7 which shows the p value for all
TPM elements were more than 0.05. Therefore, the null hypothesis cannot be rejected at
0.05 significant level; indicating that there is no significant differences of TPM element
practices between electrical and electronic industry. This consistent with the study done
by Kathleen et al., (1999) that the type of industry studied (Electronic, Machinery and
Automobile) did not provide a significant factor in the use of TPM practices. While the
country factor provides some explanation for differences in TPM implementation, there
is insufficient evidence to link the adoption of TPM to specific industries (Kathleen et

al., 1999). This means that these TPM elements are generic in nature and can be adopted

53

across different types of industries. Mishra et al. (2008) also mentioned that TPM
frameworks are assume to be generic in nature so that consultants that developed these
frameworks will be able to provide maintenance consultancy to different types of
industries in different parts of the world.

Table 4.7: t test results between electrical and electronic industry

Factor

TPM elements / strategies

B1
B2.1
B2.2
B3.1
B3.2

Top management leadership

Planned maintenance management
Focussed improvement
Autonomous maintenance
Education and training

e le ctrical
2.818
3.425
3.236
3.208
2.909

e le ctronic
3.046
3.667
3.663
3.587
3.347

p value
0.627
0.457
0.325
0.326
0.186

Results
Not Sig.
Not Sig.
Not Sig.
Not Sig.
Not Sig.

4.7.2 Differences of TPM Element Practices between SMEs and Large Companies

The second statistical test of significance aims to compare whether there are
significant differences of TPM element practices between SMEs and large companies
using the same comparison t test. The second hypotheses are as follows:

H0:

SME

Large;

i.e. there is no significant difference between SME practices (on each

TPM elements) and those of large companies

H1: SME Large: i.e. there is significant difference between SME practices (on each
TPM elements) and those of large companies

The null hypothesis assumes that the mean scores of SME and large companies
do not differ significantly from each other while the alternative hypothesis states the
opposite. From the results shown in Table 4.8, the null hypothesis at significant level of

54

0.05 cannot be rejected for key factors like planned maintenance management, focussed
improvement and autonomous maintenance while there is evidence to reject the null
hypothesis for factors like top management leadership and education and training. Thus,
there are significant differences between SME practices and those of large company in
TPM elements such as top management leadership and also education and training.
However, in areas like planned maintenance management, focussed improvement and
autonomous maintenance there is no difference in practice between SME and large
companies.

Table 4.8: Results of comparison of TPM element practices between SMEs and large
companies
Factor

TPM elements / strategies

SME

Large

B1
B2.1
B2.2
B3.1
B3.2

Top management leadership

Planned maintenance management
Focussed improvement
Autonomous maintenance
Education and training

2.226
3.380
2.829
3.041
2.457

3.124
3.639
3.713
3.572
3.409

p value Results
0.005
0.487
0.067
0.225
0.008

Sig.
Not Sig.
Not Sig.
Not Sig.
Sig.

TPM elements such as top management leadership and education and training
shows more advances in large companies compare to SMEs because of their larger
resources and manpower. Besides that, SMEs have a shortage of necessary learned
manpower (Nwankwo, 2000) and also run under very constrained funding (Gustafsson

et al., 2001). Other limitation of SMEs include lack of managerial knowledge and thus
lack of clear vision of what training is really required, lack of resources or facilities in
carrying out an effective training program or maintaining a training wing in the
organization, difficult to afford absence of employees from the workplace for training
as there is a poor scope for substitution and lack of space within the organization and
shortage of funds to be allocated for adequate training (Shamsuddin et al., 2004).

55

The results are also similar to the study done by Kathleen et al. (1999) where
overall, some of the organizational factors (size of company) were not significant and
some were in terms of explaining differences in TPM implementation. Those results
suggest that the state of organizations resources may not limit a companys ability to
implement TPM and small plants as well as large plant can implement TPM (Kathleen et
al., 1999). As Shiba et al. (1993) suggest, the real issue is not on the organizational
factor but whether or not the workforce is open to making changes that are required by
TPM.

4.8

Effect of TPM Implementation Time Period on Manufacturing Performance

Dimension

In order to study the effect of the time period of TPM implementation on the
manufacturing performance of the organization, the responses obtained from the survey
is divide into three categories pending on the experience each organization obtain on
TPM over a time period as shown in Table 4.9.

Table 4.9: Classification of responses based on TPM implementation time period

Categories

Phase 1

Phase 2
Phase 3

Time period of TPM implementation

Companies in this category consist of those who

have not implemented TPM and also companies
that have previously implemented TPM before
but there's has been a relapse due to various
reasons.
Less than three years of TPM implementation.
Introductory phase
Comprises of those companies who have
implemented TPM between three to five years
(Stabilization phase) and also those more than
five years (Maturity phase)

Number of
response
(N)
8

9
13

56

Next, the average mean and standard deviations of various manufacturing

performance dimension obtained due to effective implementation of TPM elements is
shown in Table 4.10. From the table, it is observed that the average mean value for
manufacturing performance dimension in Phase 2 is higher than those obtain in Phase 1
while the mean value for manufacturing performance dimension in Phase 3 is higher
than those in Phase 2. This means that the longer the organization implements TPM, the
more obvious the benefits in manufacturing performance can be seen. Improvement in
manufacturing performance can be seen when TPM is implemented and also over a
longer period of TPM implementation.

Table

4.10:

Results

of

manufacturing

performance

dimension

over

TPM

implementation time period.

Factor
C1
C2
C3
C4

Manufacturing
Performance
Dimension
Cost
Quality
Delivery
Productivity
Average mean

Phase 1
N=8
Mean Std Dev
2.792
1.301
3.438
0.863
3.500
0.927
3.625
0.937
3.339

Phase 2
N=9
Mean Std Dev
3.556
1.182
4.167
0.823
2.963
1.171
3.722
0.982
3.602

Phase 3
N = 13
Mean Std Dev
3.821
1.245
4.269
0.854
3.410
1.151
4.231
0.941
3.933

This is agreed upon by Robinson and Ginder (1995) who stated that TPM is a
long-term strategic initiative rather than a short-term tactical fix. It will fail if a program
of the month mentality exists. The study done by Ahuja and Khamba (2008) also
revealed that TPM implementation program does not yield overnight success but takes
appropriate planning and focussed plan assisted by top management through
organizational cultural improvement, over a considerable period of time (usually three to
five years) to realize significant results from holistic TPM implementation program. For
the most part, participants talked about TPM as a long-term process, not a quick fix for
todays problems. This seems to be an important attitude to hold, because results are not
immediate or even quick. To see the full benefits of TPM, it appears that organizations

57

need to make a continued commitment to the possibilities and philosophy espoused by

TPM methodology (Horner, 1996). TPM is not a short term fix, but a long, never-ending
journey to best in class factory performance through: on-going management
commitment, increased employee responsibilities, and continuous improvement to
achieve goals of TPM (Max International Engineering Group, 2004).

4.9

Summary

Basically, this chapter has covered the results and discussion of the survey; its
objective to evaluate TPM element/strategies emphasis and their contribution towards
manufacturing performance in electrical and electronic industry in Malaysia. The
reliability and validity of the survey has been confirmed with internal consistency test
using Cronbach alpha coefficient and factor analysis approach respectively. Majority of
the survey respondent were from large companies while there were slightly more
electronic companies compare to electric companies.

A large portion (36.6 %) of the companies have practise TPM more than five
years and are considered in the maturity stage. The TPM element which is most practise
or emphasis on by manufacturing companies in Malaysia is planned maintenance
management with a mean of 3.577 while the least emphasis on is top management
leadership with a mean 2.962. In comparison, a study by Kathleen et al., (1999) shows
that Japan has very strong emphasis in autonomous practices especially operator
involvement and planned maintenance compare to United States. On the other hand,
Italy has the weakest autonomous practices among the three nations.

Bivariate correlation procedure performed also showed that various TPM

element emphasis have significant contribution towards the manufacturing performance
of the organization. Thus, the five elements of top management, planned maintenance,

58

focused improvement; autonomous maintenance as well as education and training can

act like a benchmark for organizations that are planning to implement TPM. There is no
difference in TPM element practices between electrical and electronic companies while
only some of the TPM elements practices were found significantly different between
SMEs and large companies. Companies which practices TPM longer is also found to
show more improvements in their manufacturing performance.

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORKS

5.1

Introduction

The last chapter presents the conclusion of the entire research and provides
the limitation faced during this study as well as potential areas for future works that
could be undertaken to contribute to the knowledge of total productive maintenance
in manufacturing industry in Malaysia.

5.2

Conclusions

This present study has presented the results of the survey conducted on
Malaysian electrical and electronic industry which purpose is to evaluate TPM
elements/strategies emphasis and their contribution towards various manufacturing
performance dimensions. From the results and discussion, the TPM element practice
that has been given the most emphasis is planned maintenance management while
the least emphasis on is top management leadership. Overall, all TPM elements score
between moderately to intensively in terms of implementation. Comparisons with
other studies also show that different countries have their own emphasis on TPM
elements.

This study has investigated the contribution of TPM elements/strategies

emphasis towards manufacturing performance dimensions in electrical and electronic
industry in Malaysia. For this purpose, five TPM elements and four manufacturing

60
performance dimensions have been categories after exhaustive literature review in
this research. The empirical evidence has also been presented to support relationship
between various TPM elements and manufacturing performance. Findings show that
these TPM elements are quite important to manufacturing organization in term of
lowering cost, better quality products, strong delivery and increased productive
levels. One of the elements, autonomous maintenance though show more intangible
benefits towards the organization such as improve working environment, skill
increase of manpower and higher level of employee involvement. Thus, it can be
concluded that all five TPM elements which are top management leadership, planned
maintenance management, focussed improvement, autonomous maintenance and
education and training are equally important and need to be placed equal emphasis in
order to achieve the benefits in manufacturing performance. These elements can be a
sound platform or benchmark for organization that have plans to implement TPM in
their plant. In this way, nothing is left out and there would be a structured approach
in TPM implementation which is essential for a successful TPM implementation
program.

Besides that, this study also found that there is no difference of TPM
elements practices between electrical and electronic industry in Malaysia. Therefore,
these TPM elements are generic in nature and could be applied uniformly to different
types of industries. However, there are significant difference of some TPM elements
practices between SMEs and large companies in areas such as top management
leadership and education and training but no differences in other areas like planned
maintenance, focussed improvement and autonomous maintenance. This might
suggest that resources may not limit TPM implementation and small and large
companies could implement TPM. In addition, TPM implementation must be
deployed for a longer period of time between 3 to 5 years and more to see increased
improvement in manufacturing performance in the organization.

61
5.3

Limitations

One of the limitations of a survey based study is the response from the survey
population. Although the response rate is comparable with some other studies, a
larger response is preferable to increase the accuracy and creditability of the survey.
This could perhaps be improve if there is an organization in Malaysia that caters to
TPM such as in India where there is a TPM club that consists about 300 odd
organizations. Better responses could be achieve through distribution through this
channel rather than randomly sending surveys to companies listed in FMM directory
who might not be compile to respond to the survey. A gift pack with items such as
pens, notebook could perhaps also encourage better responses among companies.

5.4

Future Works

Since this paper has already demonstrate the significant relationship of TPM
elements/strategies emphasis and their contribution towards manufacturing
performance, future works could focus on the relationship between TPM and other
continuous improvement programs like lean manufacturing, Total Quality
Management (TQM), Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) and Employee
Involvement (EI) in manufacturing industry in Malaysia. For example, research that
identifies unique practices of lean manufacturing, TQM, RCM and EI and test their
relationship with another in support towards TPM implementation. The use of
automation in data collection and analysis, process control and management and
visual control in regards to TPM implementation could also be studied.

Besides that, the adoptability of the five TPM elements derive from this study
in an actual case study scenario could be conducted in order to view the results first
hand and also to improve further the implementation plan.

REFERENCES

Ahmed, S.M., and Hassan, M. (2003). Survey and case investigations on application of
quality management tools and techniques in SMIs. International Journal of
Quality & Reliability Management. 20 (7), 795-826.

Ahuja, I.P.S., Singh, T.P., Sushil and Wadood, A. (2004). Total productive maintenance
implementation at Tata Steel for achieving core competitiveness. Productivity.
45(3), 426-6.

Ahuja, I.P.S. and Khamba, J.S. (2007). An evaluation of TPM initiatives in Indian
industry for enhance manufacturing performance. Journal in Quality in
Maintenance Engineering. 13 (4), 338-52.

Ahuja, I.P.S. and Khamba, J.S. (2008). Justification of total productive maintenance in
Indian manufacturing industry for achieving core competitiveness. Journal in
Manufacturing Technology Management, 19 (5), 645-669.
Ahuja, I.P.S. and Pankaj Kumar. (2009). A case study of total productive maintenance
implementation at precision tube mills. Journal of Quality in Maintenance. 15 (3),
241-258.
Ames, V. A. (2003). TPM Interview. T. Pomorski. Austin, Tx.
Bamber, C.J., Sharp, J.M., and Hides, M.T. (1999). Factors affecting successful
implementation of Total Productive Maintenance: a UK manufacturing case study
perspective. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering. 5(3), 162-181.
Bargozi, R. P. (1980). Casual Models in Marketing. Wiley, New York, NY.

63

Blanchard, B. S. (1997). An enhanced approach for implementing total productive

maintenance in a manufacturing environment. Journal of Quality in Maintenance
Engineering. 3 (2), 13-16.
Bosman, H. (2000). TPM Activities Toward Winning the World Class Award. JIPM
TPM 16: 4-7.

Carannante, T., Haigh, R. H., and Morris, D. S. (1996). Implementing total productive
maintenance: a comparative study of the UK and Japanese foundry industries.
Total Quality Management and Business Excellence. 88 (11), 1-34.

Chen, F. (1997). Issue in the continuous improvement process for preventive

maintenance: observations from Honda, Nippondenso and Toyota. Production and
Inventory Management Journal. 38 (4), 13-16.

Cheng, Choon Ho .(2005). Proposal for TPM in a process industry. Call No. TS192 C43
2005, Skudai: University Technology Malaysia.

Chin, K.S., Poon, G.K.K., and Pun, K.F. (2000). The critical maintenance issues of ISO
9000 system: Hong Kong manufacturing industries perspective. Work Study. 49
(3), 89-96.

Cooke, F. L. (2000). Implementing TPM in plant maintenance: some organizational

barriers. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management. 17 (9),
1003-16.

Cramer, D. (1998). Fundamental Statistics for Social Research. London: Routledge.

Dal, B., Tugwell, P., and Greatbanks, R. (2000). Overall equipment effectiveness as a
measure for operational improvement: a practical analysis. International Journal
of Operations & Production Management. 20 (12), 1488-502.

64

Davis, R. and Willmott, P. (1999). Total Productive Maintenance. Oxford: Alden Press.
Dossenbach, T. (2006). Implementing total productive maintenance. Wood and Wood
Products. 111(2), 29-32.

F. T. S. Chan., H. C. W. Lau., R. W. L. Ip, H. K. Chan., and S. Kong. (2005).

Implementation of total productive maintenance: A case study. Int. J. Production
Economics. 95, 71-94.

Gustafsson, R., Klefsjo, B., Berggren, E. and Granfors-Wellemets, U. (2001).

Experiences from implementing ISO 9000 in small enterprises a study of
Swedish organization. The Quality Magazine. 13 (4), 232-46.

Hartmann, E. (1992). Successfully Installing TPM in a Non-Japanese Plant. Pittsburgh,

PA: TPM Press, Inc.

Herbaty, F. (1990). Handbook of Maintenance Management: Cost Effective Practices.

(2nd ed). Park Ridge, NJ: Noyes Publication.

Higgins, L. R., Brautigam, D. P., and Mobley, R. K. (1995). Maintenance Engineering

Handbook. (5th ed). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Inc.

Horner, M. (1996). Analysis of Total Productive Manufacturing Teams in

Semiconductor Manufacturing Organization. Denton, TX: University of North
Texas.
Imants BVBA Consulting and Services. (2004). The TPM (Total Productive
Maintenance) guide. Available at: http://www.managementsupport.com/tpm.htm

Ireland, F., and Dale, B.G. (2001). A study of total productive maintenance
implementation. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering. 7 (3), 183-191.

65

Japan Institute of Plant Maintenance (JIPM). (1997). Autonomous Maintenance for

Operators. Portland, OR: Productivity Press.

Jostes, R. S. and Helms, M. M. (1994). Total productive maintenance and its link to total
quality management. Work Study. 43 (7), 18-20.

Jusoh, A., R. Z., Yusoff and S., Mohtar. (2008). Determining TQM practices in
university R&D activities using factor analysis: Research experience of Malaysian
universities. Jurnal Kemanusiaan, 11 (1), 36-54.

Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika. 39, 31-36.

Kathleen, E. Mc. K., Roger G.S and Krity O.C. (1999). Total productive maintenance: a
contextual view. Journal of Operation Management. 17, 123-144.

Kathleen, E. Mc. K., Roger G.S and Krity O.C. (2001). The impact of total productive
maintenance practices on manufacturing performance. Journal of Operation
Management. 19, 39-58.

Kogyo, Nikkan. (1991). Total Productivity Maintenance: The factory management

notebook series. Productivity Press.

Komatsu, M. (1999). What is Autonomous Maintenance. JIPM TPM. 12, 2-7.

Leflar, J. (1999). TPM at Hewlett-Packard. 10th Total Productive Maintenance

Conference, Las Vegas, NV: Productivity, Inc.

Leflar, J. (2001). Practical TPM. Portland, OR: Productivity Press.

Leflar, J. (2003). TPM Interview. Fort Collins, CO: T. Pomorski.

66

Litwin, M. S. (1995). How to measure survey reliability and validity. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.

Lungberg, O. (1998). Measurement of overall equipment effectiveness as a basic for

TPM activities. International Journal of Operations and Production Management.
18 (5), 495-507.

Luxford, G. (1998). Measurement of overall equipment effectiveness as a basic for TPM

activities. International Journal of Operations and Production Management. 18
(5), 495-507.

Lycke, L. (2000). Team development when implementing TPM. Total Quality

Management. 14 (2), 205-13.

Maier, F. H., Milling, P. M. and Hasenpusch, J. (1998). Total Productive Maintenance:

An International Analysis of Implementation and Performance.

Max International Group. (2004). Total productive maintenance. Available online at:
http://www.maxieg.com/operational6.htm

MIDA. (2004). Business opportunities in Malaysias electronic industry, Published by

the Electronics Industry Division and ICT & Electrical Industries Division,
Website: http://www.mida.gov.my

Mishra, R.P., Anand, G. and Kodali, R. (2008). A SWOT analysis of total productive
maintenance frameworks. Int. J. Management Practice. 3 (1), 51-81.

Muhammad Madi Abdullah. (2006). An empirical study of critical soft factors for
quality improvement in the electrical and electronics firms in Malaysia. JSB. 11
(3), 203-215.

67

McKellen, C. (2005). Total productive maintenance. MWP. 149 (4), 18.

Nakajima, Seiichi. (1989). Introduction to TPM. Cambridge, Mass.: Productivity Press.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Nwankwo, S. (2000). Quality assurance in small organizations: myths and realities.

International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management. 17 (1), 82-99.

One, Y.S., Muhamad, J., T. Ramayah. (2006). Implementing Total Preventive

Maintenance in Malaysian Manufacturing Organization: An Operational Study,
Strategic Maintenance Management: Current Practices. Bandyopadhyay, P. K.
(Eds), (pp. 196 208). Ahmedabad, India: ICFAI University Press.

Ollila, A. and Malmipuro, M. (1999). Maintenance has a role in Quality. The TQM
Magazine, 11 (1), 17-21.

Pai, K. G. (1997). Maintenance Management. Maintenance Journal. October-December.

8-12.

Patterson, J. W., Kennedy, W. J and Fredendall, L. D. (1996). Total productive

maintenance is not for this company. Production and Inventory Management
Journal. 36 (2), 61-64.

Productivity, I. (1999). 5S for TPM - Supporting and Maintaining Total Productive

Maintenance: Participant Guide. Portland, OR: Productivity, Inc.

Productivity, Inc. (1999). New 5-Phase Plan Developed for TPM Success. TPM Report
1(5), 3-5

68
Quek Eng Eng and Shari Mohd Yusof. (2003). A survey of TQM practices in the
Malaysian electrical and electronic industry. Journal of Total Quality
Management. 14 (1), 63-67.

Raouf, A. and Ben-Daya, M. (1995). Total maintenance management: a systematic

approach. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering. 1 (1), 6-14.

Ravishanker, G, Burczak, C. and Vore, R.D. (1992). Competitive manufacturing through

total productive maintenance. Semiconductor Manufacturing Science Symposium,
ISMSS, IEEE/SEMI International, 15-16 June, 85-9.

Robinson, C. J. and A. P. Ginder. (1995). Implementing TPM: The North American

Experience. Portland, OR: Productivity Press.

Sakakibara S. (1997). Flynn, B. B., Schroeder, R. G., and Morris, W. T., The Impact of
Just-in-time Manufacturing and Its Infrastructure on Manufacturing Performance.
Management Science. 43, 1246-1257.

Sangameshwran, P and Jagannathan, R. (2002). Eight Pillars of TPM. Indian

Management. 1, 3-67.

Saylor, J.H. (1992). TQM Field Manuals, New York: McGraw-Hill.

Schroeder, R. G. (1993). Operation management, Decision Making in the Operation

Function (4th edn.) New York: McGraw-Hill.

Shamsuddin A., Masjuki, Hj.H, and Zahari, T. (2004). State of implementation of TPM
in SMIs: a survey study in Malaysia. Journal of Quality in Maintenance
Engineering. 10 (2), 93-106.

69
Shamsuddin, A., Hassan, M.H. and Taha, Z. (2005). TPM can go beyond maintenance:
expert from a case implementation. Journal of Quality in Maintenance
Engineering. 11 (1), 19-42.

Shiba, S., Graham, A., Walden, D. (1993). A New American TQM: Four Practical
Revolutions in Management. Cambridge, MA: Productivity Press.

Shingo Nakamura. (2007). TPM in semiconductor plants. JIPM-Solutions.

Shirose, K. (1989). TPM for Operator. Portland, OR: Productive Press.

Shirose, K., Ed. (1996). TPM-Total Productive Maintenance: New Implementation

Program in Fabrication and Assembly Industries Tokyo, Japan, Japan Institute of
Plant Maintenance.
Sim, H.K and Shari Mohd Yusof. (2003). Development of TPM implementation plan in
switchgear and engineering company. International Conference on Mechanical
Engineering (ICME2003). Dhaka, Bangladesh.

Skinner, W. (1969). Manufacturing missing link in corporate strategy. Harvard

Business Review. 47 (3), 136-145.

Society of Manufacturing Engineers. (1995). Total Productive Maintenance in America.

Dearborn, MI: Society of Manufacturing Engineers.

Steinbacher, H. R. and N. L. Steinbacher. (1993). TPM for America: What It Is and Why
You Need It. Cambridge, MA: Productivity Press.

Suehiro, K. (1987). Eliminating Minor Stoppages on Automated Lines. Portland, OR,

Suzuki, T. (1994). TPM in Process Industries. Portland, OR: Productivity Press.

70
Takahashi, Y. and T. Osada. (1990). TPM: Total Productive Maintenance. Tokyo: Asian
Productivity Organization.

Tajiri, M. and F. Gotoh. (1992). TPM Implementation - A Japanese Approach. New

York: McGraw Hill.

Telang, A. D. (1998). Preventive maintenance. In Vijaykumar, K. (Ed.) Proceeding of

the National Conference on Maintenance and Condition Monitoring, February 14
(pp. 160-73). Government Engineering College, Thissur, India, Institution of
Engineers, Cochin Local Centre.

Thomas, P. (2003). TPM/Productivity Improvement at Advanced Micro Devices Fab 25.

Austin, TX: Advanced Micro Devices.

Tsang, A.H.C. and Chan, P.K. (2000). TPM implementation in China: a case study.
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management. 17 (2), 144-157.

Tompkins, White, Bozer, et al. (1996). Facilities Planning. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

TPM Club India. (2003). The TPM 8 pillars. Available online at: www.tpmclubindia.org

Volvo Cars Gent. (1998) TPM pillars. Available online at: http://www.volvocarsgent.be/
content_en/g/g2.htm.

Wang, F.K. (2006). Evaluating the efficiency of implementing total productive

maintenance. Total Quality Management & Business excellence. 17 (5), 655-67.

Wang, F. K., and Lee, W. (2001). Learning curve analysis in total productive
maintenance. Omega International Journal of Management Science. 29 (6), 491-9.

71
Ward, P.T., Duray, R., Leong, G.K., Sum, C.C. (1995). Business environment,
operations strategy and performance: an empirical study of Singapore
manufacturers. Journal of Operations Management. 13, 99115.

Willmott, P. (1994). Total Productive Maintenance: The Western Way. Oxford,

England: Butterworth- Heinemann, LTD.

Williamson, R.M. (2000). The basic pillars of Total Productive Maintenance.

Maintenance Technology. 10. Available online at: www.mt-online.com/current/1000view.cfm

Williamson, Robert, M. (2006). Total Productive Maintenance: What It Is and What It Is

Not. Inc. Columbus, NC 28722: Strategic Work Systems.

Winter, John L. & Richard S. Zakrzewski. (1984). Maintenance Management for

Quality Production. Society of Manufacturing Engineers

Wireman, T. (1991). Total Productive Maintenance - An American Approach. New

York: Industrial Press.

Yamashina, H. (1994). Human factors in AMT maintenance. Salverdy, G. and

Karwowski, W. (Eds). Design of Work and Development of Personnel in Advance
Manufacturing. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Yamashina, H. (2000). Challenge to world-class manufacturing. International Journal of

Quality & Reliability Management. 17 (2), 132-143.

Yeomans, M. and Millington, P. (1997). Getting maintenance into TPM. Manufacturing

Engineer. 76 (4), 170173.

APPENDIX A
Sample of letter and TPM questionnaire survey

Total Productive Maintenance in manufacturing industry in

Malaysia
Introduction
The questionnaire survey purpose is to evaluate TPM strategies or elements
emphasis in manufacturing industry in Malaysia and their contribution towards
manufacturing performance
performance.. We hope that through this survey, companies in
Malaysia that have plans of implementing Total Productive Maintenance
Maintenanc will
understand which TPM strategies or elements that are significant or should be
emphasize on. Besides that, contribution of these TPM strategies on various aspect of
manufacturing performance can be studied and provide justification for management
of companies to implement TPM.
We seek your participation in completing this questionnaire based on your
truthful opinions and experience. There is no right or wrong answers in this
questionnaire. All information provided is strictly confidential and will only
on be used
for the purpose of this academic research.
This questionnaire consists of 3 sections of which all need to be answered
according to the given instructions. We look forward to receiving your response on
this questionnaire as soon as possible. You
Yourr inputs will be greatly appreciated as it
will certainly contribute towards the advancement and success of this study.
We sincerely thank for your valuable time and effort in completing this
questionnaire. If you have further enquiries, please do not hes
hesitate
itate to contact me via
contact details below

Best regards,
Jonathan Wee Jian Meng
M. Eng. Industrial Engineering student
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering
University Technology Malaysia
Johor-Malaysia
Email: jonwi2@yahoo.com
Tel: 012-2349091
2349091

Project Supervisor:
Professor Dr Noordin Mohd Yusof
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
Johor
Email: noordin@fkm.utm.my
Tel: 019
019-7787467
7787467

73
Please check x the appropriate box to indicate your agreement/ level of agreement
with each question, as well as write down your opinion or comment accordingly

Section A General Information

1. How many people are employed by your company?
50 or less
51 to 150
151 to 1000
More than 1000
2. What are the products types manufactured?
Consumer Electronics: (DVD) players/recorders, home theatre
systems, blu ray, mini disc, electronics games consoles and digital
cameras, etc
Electronic Components: semiconductor devices, passive
components, printed circuits, substrates, connectors, etc
Electrical: household appliances such as air-conditioners,
refrigerators, washing machines, vacuum cleaners and other electrical
appliances
Supporting Industries: plastic moulded parts, metal stamped,
precision machined parts, plating, mould, tools, die, etc
Others: ____________________________________________

3. How many years of TPM implementation?

less than 3 years (Introductory Stage)
3 to 5 years (Stabilization Phase)
More than 5 years (Maturity Stage)
TPM has never been implemented yet
TPM was implemented previously but there has been a relapsed due
to various reasons.

4. Your position in the company: ___________________

5. Email address (optional): ________________________

74

Section B Various TPM strategies/ elements

Five point rating scale (1 no emphasis at all, 2 - very little emphasis, 3 some
emphasis, 4 reasonable emphasis, 5 extensive emphasis)
Please rank your company emphasis in the various TPM strategies or elements listed
below.

B1. Top Management Leadership

No
Emphasis
1
a. Top management
communication to all
employees that TPM is
an integral part of
company policy
b. Senior management
devotes time and
allocates resources for
TPM purpose
c. Demonstration of TPM
master plan (goals,
action plan) by top
management
d. Existence of structured
TPM organization (team
leader, members, etc)
e. Existence of well
planned and structured
maintenance
organization
f. Involvement of
production or
maintenance people in
equipment selection
decision
g. Motivation of rewards
and awards through TPM
achievements by
management

Extensive
Emphasis
5

75

B2.1. Planned Maintenance (PM) Management

No
Emphasis
1
a. Availability of effective
PM program covering
plant equipment in the
organization
b. Discipline planning in
maintenance activities
where portion of a day or
shift reserved for
maintenance
c. Use PM check sheets
specifying PM work for
each equipment
d. Monitoring and analyses
of machine failure and
taking action to prevent
reoccurrence
e. Maintenance or PM
schedule being followed
consistent on time
f. Availability of
maintenance inventory
when needed

Extensive
Emphasis
5

76
B2.2. Focussed Improvement

No
Emphasis
1
a. Mechanism for
recording maintenance
performance metrics
(OEE, mean time to
repair-MTTR, mean time
between failure-MTBF,
etc)
b. Maintaining basic
equipment condition and
return back to optimum
condition
c. Maintenance aims to
eliminate even minor
defects of equipment
d. Information on
productivity is readily
available to employees
e. Use of Pareto charts, 5
why analysis, fishbone
diagram, FMEA, etc to
analyse and eliminate
productivity losses

Extensive
Emphasis
5

77
B3.1. Autonomous Maintenance

No
Emphasis
1
a. Implementation of 5S
initiatives in the
organization
b. The plant emphasizes
putting all tools and
fixtures in their place
c. Deployment of cleaning,
lubrication, tightening
standard
d. Using of small group
activity or problem
solving teams to help
improve manufacturing
processes in plant
e. Tackling of hard to
clean/inspect/access
situations of machines in
plant
f. Demonstration of
ownership of machines
by production operators
g. Deployment of visual
control like gauge/meter,
kanban system, TPM
activity board, labels, etc

Extensive
Emphasis
5

78
B3.2. Education and Training

No
Emphasis
1

Extensive
Emphasis
5

a. TPM training conducted

for all employees
covering the overview of
TPM concept, redefined
roles of operators &
maintenance people,
expected benefits, etc
b. Production operators are
trained to perform
routine PM task, setting
of machine, etc
c. Employees receive
training to perform
multiple task
d. At this plant, employees
only learn how to do one
job/task R
e. Exist staff development
program that focus on
upgrading employees
technical, problem
solving, team working
skills, etc

6. Does your company place emphasis on TPM strategies or elements other than
the ones listed previously? If yes, please describe them in the column below
(for example, health, safety and environment, early management, etc)
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________

79
Section C Contribution of TPM strategies/element emphasis towards
manufacturing performance
Five point rating scale (1 no correlation at all, 2 nominal impact, 3- some impact,
4 reasonable impact, 5 extensive impact/correlation)
Please rank the contribution of TPM strategies/element emphasis towards different
aspect of your company performance. The higher the rating, the more significant the
impact/correlation
C1. Cost
No
Correlation
1
2

Extensive
Correlation
5

Extensive
Correlation
5

a. Reduction of operating
cost through these TPM
strategies
implementation
b. Reduction in energy
consumption (e.g.
electricity bill) and
overhead expenditure
c. Reduction in additional
investment in
purchasing new
machine/parts
C2. Quality
No
Correlation
1
2
a. Reduction of percentage
of internal scrap and
rework in operations
b. Improved customer
order compliance and
conformance to
specification
c. Reduction of customers
returns due to defects
d. Improve overall
manufacturing quality
and less variation in
processes

80
C3. Delivery
No
Correlation
1
2

Extensive
Correlation
5

Extensive
Correlation
4
5

a. Achieving dependable
deliveries by having
high percentage of
products delivered on
time
b. Achieving faster
deliveries by averaging
low lead times between
receipt of order till
shipment
c. Reduction in cycle time
to develop new product

C4. Productivity
No
Correlation
1
2
a. Improvement in
equipment availability
and reliability
b. Reduction in setup times
and unplanned downtime
c. Improvement in overall
equipment effectiveness
(OEE)
d. Improve control over
production schedule

81

7. Please provide any comments or suggestion that might help us in our study.
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________

THANK YOU FOR YOUR CO-OPERATION!

82
APPENDIX B
Sample of SPSS Data

Reliability test using Cronbachs alpha

Examples of some of the TPM element factors:
Top management leadership, B1
NEW FILE.
DATASET NAME DataSet2 WINDOW=FRONT.
RELIABILITY
/VARIABLES=VAR00001 VAR00002 VAR00003 VAR00004 VAR00005 VAR00006
VAR00007
/SCALE('ALL VARIABLES') ALL
/MODEL=ALPHA.

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha

N of Items
.957

Planned maintenance management, B2.1

RELIABILITY
/VARIABLES=VAR00008 VAR00009 VAR00010 VAR00011 VAR00012 VAR00013
/SCALE('ALL VARIABLES') ALL
/MODEL=ALPHA.

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha

N of Items
.937

83
Example for one of the factors in validity testing using KMO test and principal
component analysis
Top management leadership, B1
KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy.
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity

.847

Approx. Chi-Square

256.723

df

21

Sig.

.000

Model Summary
Dimension

dimension0

Variance Accounted For

Cronbach's

Total

Alpha

(Eigenvalue)

% of Variance

.950

5.383

76.906

.174

1.177

16.817

6.561

93.722

Total

.989

a. Total Cronbach's Alpha is based on the total Eigenvalue.

Component Loadings
Dimension
1

VAR00001

.894

-.418

VAR00002

.892

-.429

VAR00003

.931

-.299

VAR00004

.957

-.124

VAR00005

.746

.625

VAR00006

.848

.386

VAR00007

.854

.418

Variable Principal Normalization.

84
Bivariate correlation procedure is used to compute the Pearsons correlation
coefficient between TPM elements and manufacturing performance dimension.
Examples of the five TPM elements correlation with manufacturing performance in
quality is shown below:

Correlations
Between Top management leadership (B1) and Cost (C1)
[DataSet1]
C:\Users\Jon\Documents\SPSSInc\PASWStatistics18\TPMdata.sav
Correlations
B1
B1

Pearson Correlation

C1
1

Sig. (2-tailed)

Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)

**

.000

N
C1

.691

30

30

**

.691

.000

30

30

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Between Planned maintenance management (B2.1) and Quality (C1)

[DataSet1]
C:\Users\Jon\Documents\SPSSInc\PASWStatistics18\TPMdata.sav

Correlations
C2
C2

Pearson Correlation

B2.1
1

Sig. (2-tailed)
N
B2.1

Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

.740

**

.000
30

30

**

.740

.000
30

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

30

85
Between Focused Improvement (B2.2) and Quality (C1)
[DataSet1]
C:\Users\Jon\Documents\SPSSInc\PASWStatistics18\TPMdata.sav

Correlations
B2.2
B2.2

Pearson Correlation

C1
1

.393

Sig. (2-tailed)

.032

N
C1

30

30

Pearson Correlation

.393

Sig. (2-tailed)

.032

30

30

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Between Autonomous Maintenance (B3.1) and Quality (C1)

[DataSet1]
C:\Users\Jon\Documents\SPSSInc\PASWStatistics18\TPMdata.sav

Correlations
C1
C1

Pearson Correlation

B3.1
1

Sig. (2-tailed)
N
B3.1

Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

.707

**

.000
30

30

**

.707

.000
30

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

30

86

Between Education and Training (B3.2) and Quality (C1)

[DataSet1]
C:\Users\Jon\Documents\SPSSInc\PASWStatistics18\TPMdata.sav

Correlations
C1
C1

Pearson Correlation

B3.2
1

Sig. (2-tailed)
N
B3.2

Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

.648

**

.000
30

30

**

.648

.000
30

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

30

87

Differences between TPM element practices between electrical and electronic

industry
TPM element (Top management leadership, B1)
Group Statistics
1=Electronic, 2=Electric
B1

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean

1.00

19

3.0458

1.24891

.28652

2.00

11

2.8182

1.16964

.35266

dimension1

Independent Samples Test

B1
Equal variances

Equal variances

assumed

not assumed

Levene's Test for

.028

Equality of Variances

Sig.

.869

t-test for Equality of

.492

.501

Means

df

28

22.188

.627

.621

Mean Difference

.22761

.22761

Std. Error Difference

.46267

.45438

Sig. (2-tailed)

95% Confidence Interval

Lower

-.72013

-.71426

of the Difference

Upper

1.17534

1.16947

Planned maintenance management, B2.1

Group Statistics
1=Electronic, 2=Electric
B2.1

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean

1.00

19

3.6674

.82754

.18985

2.00

11

3.4245

.88642

.26727

dimension1

88
Independent Samples Test
B2.1
Equal

Equal

variances

variances not

assumed

assumed

Levene's Test for

.046

Equality of Variances

Sig.

.831

t-test for Equality of

.755

.741

Means

df

28

19.832

.457

.468

Mean Difference

.24282

.24282

Std. Error Difference

.32167

.32783

Sig. (2-tailed)

95% Confidence

Lower

-.41609

-.44140

Interval of the

Upper

.90174

.92704

Difference

Focussed Improvement, B2.2

Group Statistics
1=Electronic, 2=Electric
B2.2

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean

1.00

19

3.6632

1.01992

.23399

2.00

11

3.2364

1.28940

.38877

dimension1

Independent Samples Test

B2.2

Levene's Test for

Equality of Variances

Sig.

t-test for Equality of

Means

df

Equal

Equal

variances

variances not

assumed

assumed

1.475
.235
1.003

.941

28

17.296

.325

.360

Mean Difference

.42679

.42679

Std. Error Difference

.42570

.45375

Sig. (2-tailed)

95% Confidence

Lower

-.44521

-.52929

Interval of the

Upper

1.29880

1.38288

Difference

89
Autonomous Maintenance, B3.1
Group Statistics
1=Electronic, 2=Electric
B3.1

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean

1.00

19

3.5868

.99095

.22734

2.00

11

3.2082

1.01359

.30561

dimension1

Independent Samples Test

B3.1
Equal

Equal

variances

variances not

assumed

assumed

Levene's Test for

.228

Equality of Variances

Sig.

.637

t-test for Equality of

Means

df

1.000

.994

28

20.622

.326

.332

Mean Difference

.37866

.37866

Std. Error Difference

.37852

.38089

Sig. (2-tailed)

95% Confidence

Lower

-.39671

-.41434

Interval of the

Upper

1.15403

1.17166

Difference

Education and Training, B3.2

Group Statistics
1=Electronic, 2=Electric
B3.2

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean

1.00

19

3.3474

.84811

.19457

2.00

11

2.9091

.86424

.26058

dimension1

90
Independent Samples Test
B3.2
Equal

Equal

variances

variances not

assumed

assumed

Levene's Test for

.000

Equality of Variances

Sig.

.985

t-test for Equality of

Means

df

1.355

1.348

28

20.687

.186

.192

Mean Difference

.43828

.43828

Std. Error Difference

.32352

.32521

Sig. (2-tailed)

95% Confidence

Lower

-.22442

-.23865

Interval of the

Upper

1.10097

1.11520

Difference

Differences between TPM element practices between SMEs and large companies
Top management leadership, B1
Group Statistics
1=SME, 2=Large
B1

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean

1.00

2.2257

.32893

.12432

2.00

23

3.1243

1.28175

.26726

dimension1

Independent Samples Test

B1

Levene's Test for

Equality of Variances

Sig.

t-test for Equality of

Means

df

Equal

Equal

variances

variances not

assumed

assumed

12.908
.001

Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean Difference
Std. Error Difference

-1.816

-3.049

28

27.781

.080

.005

-.89863

-.89863

.49482

.29476

95% Confidence

Lower

-1.91223

-1.50265

Interval of the

Upper

.11496

-.29462

Difference

91

Planned maintenance management, B2.1

Group Statistics
1=SME, 2=Large
B2.1

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean

1.00

3.3800

.57773

.21836

2.00

23

3.6387

.91038

.18983

dimension1

Independent Samples Test

B2.1

Levene's Test for

Equality of Variances

Sig.

t-test for Equality of

Means

df

Equal

Equal

variances

variances not

assumed

assumed

1.738
.198

Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean Difference
Std. Error Difference

-.705

-.894

28

16.003

.487

.385

-.25870

-.25870

.36697

.28934

95% Confidence

Lower

-1.01040

-.87205

Interval of the

Upper

.49301

.35466

Difference

Focussed Improvement, B2.2

Group Statistics
1=SME, 2=Large
B2.2

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean

1.00

2.8286

1.21342

.45863

2.00

23

3.7130

1.03542

.21590

dimension1

92
Independent Samples Test
B2.2
Equal

Equal

variances

variances not

assumed

assumed

Levene's Test for

.786

Equality of Variances

Sig.

.383

t-test for Equality of

Means

df
Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean Difference
Std. Error Difference

-1.904

-1.745

28

8.836

.067

.116

-.88447

-.88447

.46449

.50691

95% Confidence

Lower

-1.83594

-2.03443

Interval of the

Upper

.06700

.26549

Difference

Autonomous Maintenance, B3.1

Group Statistics
1=SME, 2=Large
B3.1

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean

1.00

3.0414

.82576

.31211

2.00

23

3.5717

1.03017

.21481

dimension1

Independent Samples Test

B3.1
Equal

Equal

variances

variances not

assumed

assumed

Levene's Test for

.481

Equality of Variances

Sig.

.494

t-test for Equality of

Means

df
Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean Difference
Std. Error Difference

-1.241

-1.400

28

12.279

.225

.186

-.53031

-.53031

.42732

.37888

95% Confidence

Lower

-1.40563

-1.35375

Interval of the

Upper

.34501

.29313

Difference

93

Education and training

Group Statistics
1=SME, 2=Large
B3.2

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean

1.00

2.4571

.53807

.20337

2.00

23

3.4087

.83007

.17308

dimension1

Independent Samples Test

B3.2

Levene's Test for

Equality of Variances

Sig.

t-test for Equality of

Means

df

Equal

Equal

variances

variances not

assumed

assumed

3.815
.061

Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean Difference
Std. Error Difference

-2.838

-3.563

28

15.606

.008

.003

-.95155

-.95155

.33531

.26705

95% Confidence

Lower

-1.63841

-1.51884

Interval of the

Upper

-.26469

-.38426

Difference