Você está na página 1de 30

Industrial Management & Data Systems

Manufacturing excellence through TPM implementation: a practical analysis


Rajiv Kumar Sharma Dinesh Kumar Pradeep Kumar
Article information:
To cite this document:
Rajiv Kumar Sharma Dinesh Kumar Pradeep Kumar, (2006),"Manufacturing excellence through TPM
implementation: a practical analysis", Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 106 Iss 2 pp. 256 - 280
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02635570610649899
Downloaded on: 08 October 2016, At: 06:25 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 47 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Downloaded by UNIMEP At 06:25 08 October 2016 (PT)

The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 3405 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2008),"Total productive maintenance: literature review and directions", International Journal of Quality
& Reliability Management, Vol. 25 Iss 7 pp. 709-756 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02656710810890890
(2001),"A study of total productive maintenance implementation", Journal of Quality in Maintenance
Engineering, Vol. 7 Iss 3 pp. 183-192 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13552510110404495

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:478601 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.


The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0263-5577.htm

IMDS
106,2 Manufacturing excellence
through TPM implementation:
a practical analysis
256
Rajiv Kumar Sharma, Dinesh Kumar and Pradeep Kumar
IIT Roorkee, Roorkee, India

Abstract
Purpose – To examine the need to develop, practice and implement such maintenance practices,
which not only reduce sudden sporadic failures in semi-automated cells but also reduce both operation
and maintenance (O&M) costs.
Design/methodology/approach – A case-based approach in conjunction with standard tools,
techniques and practices is used to discuss various issues related with TPM implementation in a
Downloaded by UNIMEP At 06:25 08 October 2016 (PT)

semi-automated cell.
Findings – The findings indicate that TPM not only leads to increase in efficiency and effectiveness
of manufacturing systems, measured in terms of OEE index, by reducing the wastages but also
prepares the plant to meet the challenges put forward by globally competing economies to achieve
world class manufacturing (WCM) status.
Originality/value – The paper presents an interesting investigation of TPM implementation issues
which may help the managers/practitioners to prepare their plants/units to meet the challenges of
competitive manufacturing in twenty-first century by adopting and implementing TPM.
Keywords Cellular manufacturing, Maintenance, Operations management, Maintenance programmes,
Preventive maintenance, World class manufacturing
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
In this age of agile manufacturing the global competition characterized by both
technology push and market pull had forced the companies to achieve world-class
performance through continuous improvement in their products and processes. Today,
various innovative techniques and management practices such as total preventive
maintenance (TPM); total quality management (TQM); business process reengineering
(BPR); materials requirement planning (MRP); enterprise resource planning (ERP) and
just in time (JIT), etc. are becoming popular among the business houses (Ljungberg,
1998; Jonsson and Lesshammar, 1999; Nikolopoulos et al., 2003; Leem and Kim, 2004;
Rodney and Galloway, 2005; Chou and Hsu, 2005). With increased competition,
demands on products with higher quality, faster delivery time had forced the managers
to convert conventional manufacturing practices to computer controlled
manufacturing practices such as flexible manufacturing systems (FMS) and
computer integrated manufacturing systems. The trends are apparent from concepts
such as CIM, CAD, CAM, JIT, and FMS. Significant improvements in inventory levels,
Industrial Management & Data space requirements, lead and cycle times, scrap and yield rates and other quality
Systems measures have been reported from numerous studies (Tajiri and Gotoh, 1992; Raouf,
Vol. 106 No. 2, 2006
pp. 256-280 1994; Jostes and Helms, 1994; Ben-Daya and Duffuaa, 1995; Bateman, 1995; Ljungberg,
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0263-5577
1998; Agbasi et al., 2004) But the troubled free operation of systems had not been
DOI 10.1108/02635570610649899 completely ruled out. For instance, in a highly integrated manufacturing system such
as an FMS, machinery is integrated with complex computer network (CNC or DNC). Manufacturing
Each machine in an FMS is a combination of many sub-assemblies, where each excellence
sub-assembly is itself complex and consists of many dissimilar interdependent
components (mechanical, electronic, hydraulic, software). Owing to their complexity through TPM
the systems are vulnerable to various kinds of disturbances, the nature and number of
failures and the time required to locate them. It is quite evident that the traditional
maintenance activities based on fire-fighting approach (fix it, when breaks) called 257
reactive maintenance will no longer satisfy the needs of modern manufacturing
systems. Therefore, the development, adoption and practice of new maintenance
strategies with a focus on how to increase the productive time by maximizing
availability and how to avoid unplanned breakdowns, had become essential. The
management of many companies (such as Procter and Gamble, Dupont, Ford and
Eastman chemicals) have looked towards adoption of effective and efficient
maintenance strategies such as condition-based maintenance (CBM); total preventive
maintenance (TPM) and reliability centered maintenance (RCM) over the traditional
Downloaded by UNIMEP At 06:25 08 October 2016 (PT)

firefighting reactive maintenance approaches (Tajiri and Gotoh, 1992; Coettzee, 1999;
Swanson, 2001; Tsang, 2002; Wayenbergh and Pintelon, 2002).
In the area of mathematical modeling and optimization the literature is extensive.
Various algorithms and models related to loading and scheduling problems of FMS
have been developed (Cho and Parlar, 1991; Chaturvedi, 1993; Paulli, 1995; Liu and
McCarthy, 1997; Prickett, 1997; Lawrence, 1999; Chan, 1999; Gamila and Motavalli,
2003; Somlo, 2004; Das and Canel, 2005). But very little effort has been made on
analysis and development of maintenance strategies in this area. Bateman (1995)
discussed the impact of reactive maintenance strategy on production. He concluded
that overall maintenance cost increases because of increase in down time, scrap rate
and deterioration of quality. McKone and Wiess (1998) identify significant gaps
between industry practice and academic research and emphasize the need to abridge
these gaps. Canel (1997) discussed the need for development of information systems for
successful operation of FMS so that the problems of idle time can be taken care of.
Today as more and more factories are going to employ this new technology, the subject
of maintenance management becomes crucial because the failure of even a single
component can not only idle the machine/facility but also the failure can quickly idle an
entire production system. The failures may come from lack of maintenance, improper
or intensive operation, unstable operating environment, and so on. These failures not
only add to downtime but also additional operation and maintenance costs. Quickly
finding out the cause(s) of failure(s) and taking appropriate remedial actions is very
important. So the need to design and implement a company wide maintenance
planning system which not only investigates the causes of failures but also integrates
the resources, i.e. man, machine and materials is felt. In this respect the paper attempts
to provide an in-depth, case-based approach to implement TPM in a semi-automated
cell of a company. This will not only help in identification of the nature failures, their
documentation and analysis but also help maintenance managers/practitioners to
understand the reality of failures, their nature and to reduce their effect by adopting
suitable repair/replacement strategies.
The paper is organized as follows. Starting with introduction in Sections 1 and 2
briefs about the evolution of maintenance concept and characteristics of FMS with
description of types and nature of failures in FMS. Section 3 presents in brief the
IMDS literature review regarding the development of TPM and OEE (a measure of TPM).
106,2 Section 4 discusses the procedure for detailed TPM implementation in the cell with
greater emphasis on data collection and failure analysis. Section 5 demonstrates the
tangible and intangible benefits obtained after the TPM implementation and
recommendations for companies going to adapt and practice TPM. Finally, Section 6
presents the results and conclusions.
258
2. Evolution of maintenance concept
Effective maintenance not only helps to retain equipment/facility in proper condition
but also extends its life and improves availability. On the other hand poorly
maintained equipment/facility may lead to more frequent failures, poor utilization
resulting in production delays. Traditionally many companies employed fire-fighting
approach called reactive maintenance for maintenance activities, which means that as
and when equipment fails to perform, repairs are carried out. This practice not only
increases the total down time but also hampers the production. With the advancement
Downloaded by UNIMEP At 06:25 08 October 2016 (PT)

in technology, this strategy has been replaced by proactive and aggressive


maintenance strategies. A proactive approach calls for preventive and predictive
maintenance to prevent sudden sporadic or chronic failures. In present times because
of automation and large-scale mechanization, higher plant availability, better product
quality and long equipment life had assumed considerable significance. In order to
meet the above challenges, adoption of a suitable maintenance strategy has become
essential for organizations to survive. While these newer maintenance strategies
require greater commitments in terms of training, resources and integration, they are
also expected to provide higher levels of equipment and plant performance (Ljungberg,
1998; Jonsson and Lesshammar, 1999). Since 1930s the evolution of maintenance can be
traced with in three-time perspectives (Wayenberg and Pintelon, 2002):
(1) First time perspective. It covers the period up to World War II. During this
period the industry was not mechanized and equipment was simple. Hence, the
maintenance task was easy. The concept of “Fix it when breaks” emerged.
(2) Second time perspective. Large-scale industrialization in Europe and America
lead to increased mechanization as a result of which complex machines were
evolved. Machine downtime became significant aspect. Hence, the concept of
preventive maintenance (PM) was introduced, i.e. “I operate – You Fix”. In
1960s, this consisted of mainly equipment overhauls at regular periodic
intervals of time.
(3) Third time perspective. Since the mid-1970s, the changes in industry have
gathered momentum. Owing to automation and mechanization reliability and
availability became key issues. Conventional PM methodology fails to fulfill the
challenges put forward by modern, complex manufacturing systems. So, the
need to develop decision support systems, new maintenance management
techniques was felt.

To improve the asset performance at reduced cost strategies like DBM, DOM, TPM,
CBM, and RCM evolved with passage of time. Recently with recognition of
maintenance as a profit generator the concept of outsourcing (external partnerships)
has emerged. Table I.presents the evolution of maintenance concept in brief.
2.1 Maintenance characteristics of FMS Manufacturing
Studies conducted by Meredith (1988) and Meredith and Suresh (1986) revealed excellence
that an FMS operates at utilization rate of 80 percent or higher as compared to
traditional machine tools with utilization rate only 20 percent. This undoubtedly through TPM
results in the FMS incurring four times the wear than the traditional machine
tools during a given time period. Evidently, in FMS the components would
experience more wear and tear than the components in traditional/conventional 259
machine tools. In FMS each facility or machine is integrated with a complex
computer network consists of many dissimilar interdependent components
(mechanical, electrical, hydraulic, and electronic). Because of this intricate nature,
the maintenance policies for FMS should focus on the knowledge of entire system
instead of individual units or components (Cho and Parlar, 1991). The policies so
selected should be capable of keeping the systems free from physical deterioration
during their useful life period. In response to the maintenance and support
problems encountered in the complex manufacturing environments, the Japanese
Downloaded by UNIMEP At 06:25 08 October 2016 (PT)

(Nakajima, 1988) developed and introduced the concept of TPM, as it offers the
most systematic and efficient way to address the maintenance problems by
adoption and implementation of a well-conceived plan with the help of autonomous
maintenance (AM) and focus improvement (FI) teams. The implementation of such
effective policies enables managers to avoid premature replacement costs, maintain
stable production capabilities, and prevent the devaluation of the system and its
component parts.
2.1.1 FMS-types and nature of failures. On the basis of layout, transport system and
number of machine tools FMS are classified as:
.
FMM ¼ Flexible manufacturing module.
.
FMC ¼ Flexible manufacturing cell.
.
FMS ¼ Flexible manufacturing system.
.
FMF ¼ Flexible manufacturing factory.

FMM consists of stand-alone NC lathe or machining center equipped with a


transport function such as robot, automatic pallet changer, magazine and monitoring
functions.
FMC consists of two NC machine tools with an automatic transport system, various
functions and sensors for automatic operation.

First (,1950) Second (1950-1975) Third (1975-2000 . . .)

Production Manpower Mechanization Automation and globalization


function “Fix it when “I operate – You Fix” Concepts such as outsourcing
breaks” and information processing
Maintenance Considered as Considered as a task of Realized maintenance not an
function necessary evil maintenance department isolated function. An integrated, Table I.
external þ internal partnerships Evolution of maintenance
Maintenance Corrective Bath tub curve-based PM CBM, VBM, TPM, RCM, DOM, concept with time
techniques maintenance policy DBM perspective
IMDS FMS is made of three or more NC machine tools, which are integrated to each other by
106,2 an automatic transport system. For machining operation, FMS possesses advanced
auxiliary functions, monitoring functions and a comprehensive computer control
function. The computer performs functions such as:
.
scheduling jobs onto the machine tools;
.
downloading part-programs to the machines; and
260 . sending instructions to the automated vehicle system for transportation.

In FMF (factory level) all the processes are changed to FMS. All the functions in the
factory are systemized by a host computer and several sub computers. The highest
level of factory automation means that computer integrated manufacturing is put into
practical application through the entire process from ordering to shipping of the goods.
Figure 1(a) shows the classification considering the work pieces and lot sizes and
Figure 1(b) shows the FMS pattern based on layouts (single, one-sided/two-sided and
cell type)
Downloaded by UNIMEP At 06:25 08 October 2016 (PT)

FMS, a highly integrated manufacturing system consists of many dissimilar


components, i.e. mechanical, electronic, hydraulic, software integrated with computer
network The failure of a single component can not only idle a very expensive piece of
equipment but also due to reduced work-in process, the failure can quickly idle the
entire production system. The typical failures in FMS can be classified as (Hammer,
1987; Kennedy, 1987):

(a) Large

L
O
T

S
I
Z
E

Small Small Variety of work pieces Large

(b) Module MC MC Cell


MC
R

C C
Figure 1. T
FMS classification (a) lot System Single pattern
sizes and variety of work
pieces; (b) layout
One-sided type. Two-sided type
.
Mechanical failures. Mechanical failures include failures of traditional Manufacturing
components such as gears, bearings, fixtures, and tooling. For carrying out excellence
necessary repairs these types of failures require the machine/facility to be shut
down. through TPM
.
Hydraulic failures. Hydraulic failures consisted of failures of hoses, pumps,
solenoids and valves. These failures can be avoided by performing regular
maintenance interventions such as cleaning oil, maintaining proper oil volume, 261
and changing/cleaning of filters to prevent contamination of hydraulic
components. It takes long time to repair such failures because when a failure
occurs it requires machine to be shutdown for the entire maintenance activity.
.
Electronic failures. Electronic failures include failures of the solid-state
components such as servo drives, power supplies, and logic buses. Because of
remarkable advances in the field of electronic components reliability these types
of failure require less time to repair.
Human failures. Human failures mainly occur because of errors of omission and
Downloaded by UNIMEP At 06:25 08 October 2016 (PT)

commission. Failures in this category include any stoppage of the system due to
improper actions (such as pushing the wrong button or lever, using the wrong
weight of oil, failure to take the correct remedial actions such as not closing an
interlocking door or not tightening a bolt). Number and rate of human failures is
a function of the skill acquired by the operating and maintenance personnel.
.
Software failures. Any stoppage or failure of the system due to improper logic or
coding leads to failures in this category. Software failures exhibit many of the
characteristics of human failures, as these are oftenly caused by programmer
(human) errors or omissions. However, they differ significantly from human
failures, once corrected they seldom return, unlike human failures that are
oftenly repeated. The number of software failures depends upon part and system
program changes/alterations made in the FMS unit.
.
Electrical failures. Electrical failures include failures of electro-mechanical
devices such as motors, relays, starters, transformers and wiring. These types of
failures occurred regularly but consume little repair time and therefore result in
relatively small MTTRs. For instance, the low repair time is primarily due to
failures such as blown fuses or dirty limit switches.

3. Literature review
3.1 Origin and development of TPM
So far as cost effectiveness in terms of their operation and support is concerned, most
of the manufacturing systems often operate at less than full capacity, with low
productivity, and as a result the costs of producing products is high. The study
conducted by Mobley (1990) reports that 15-40 percent of total production cost is
attributed to the maintenance activities (spare parts, labor and material costs). Further
he concluded that corrective maintenance (CM) cost is about three times higher than
the PM cost. With advancement of technology these costs are likely to go even higher
in the future when more and more companies will transcend /transform their
conventional manufacturing practices to complex computer controlled manufacturing
practices in order to meet the challenges put forth by competitive economies. In
response to the maintenance and support problems encountered in manufacturing
IMDS environments, the Japanese developed and introduced the concept of TPM, initially in
106,2 1971. According to Japanese Institute of Plant Engineers (JIPE), TPM is defined as a
team-based maintenance strategy designed to maximize equipment effectiveness by
establishing a comprehensive maintenance production system covering the entire life
of equipment, spanning all equipment related fields (planning, use and maintenance)
and involving every one, i.e. from top management executives to the production floor
262 operators. It describes a synergistic relationship among all organizational functions
and thus promotes productive maintenance through motivation management and
voluntary small group activities. It requires horizontal type of organizational structure
with few authority levels instead of conventional vertical type having too many
authorities. According to the Nakajima (1988), the concept of TPM includes five
elements. These are:
(1) TPM aims to maximize equipment effectiveness.
(2) TPM establishes a thorough system of PM for the equipment’s entire life span.
Downloaded by UNIMEP At 06:25 08 October 2016 (PT)

(3) TPM is implemented by various departments in a company.


(4) TPM involves every single employee, from top management to workers on the
shop floor.
(5) TPM is an aggressive strategy focuses on actually improving the function and
design of the production equipment.

To quote Nakajima (1988). Further, the word “total” in TPM has three meanings:
(1) Total effectiveness. It indicates TPM’s pursuit of economic efficiency and
profitability which includes productivity, cost, quality, delivery, safety
environment, health and morale. (Concept (i))
(2) Total maintenance. It includes maintenance prevention (MP) and
maintainability improvement (MI).It refers to “maintenance-free” design
through the incorporation of reliability, maintainability and supportability
characteristics into the equipment design (Concept (ii)).
(3) Total participation. Participation of all employees through small group
activities, which includes AM by operators. The small group activities
promotes planned maintenance (PM) through “motivation management”
(Concept (iii), (iv) and (v)).

3.2 Measurement of TPM effectiveness


From a generic perspective, TPM can be defined in terms of overall equipment
effectiveness (OEE) (Ljungberg, 1998; McKone and Wiess, 1998; Lesshammar, 1999;
Dal et al., 2000; Sharma et al., 2005). The goal of TPM is to maximize equipment
effectiveness. OEE provides an effective way of measuring and analyzing the
efficiency of a single machine/cell or an integrated manufacturing system. Like
creation of “family of products” (on basis of similarities in design or process) in FMS,
TPM system groups the equipment losses into six major categories which are further
grouped under three categories, i.e. availability, performance rate, and quality rate
(Figure 2). The resultant OEE is used to measure the effectiveness of the system.
Table II presents the detailed description of various losses with characteristics. Type (i)
and (ii) losses are called “time losses” used for calculating the availability of equipment.
Minor/idling
Manufacturing
Breakdown Set-up and Reduced speed Reduced Defect/rew
losses adjustment losses losses (iv) yield losses ork losses excellence
(i) losses (ii) (iii) (v) (vi)
through TPM

Availability Performance efficiency Quality rate


263

Figure 2.
OEE model

Serial number Type of losses Characteristics


Downloaded by UNIMEP At 06:25 08 October 2016 (PT)

a
(i) Downtime or breakdown These losses are due to sporadic/chronic failures.
Sporadic failures occur when changes occur in some
conditions (jigs/tools, work methods, and
equipment’s state). Chronic failures occur when there
are some hidden defects in machinery/equipment
a
(ii) Set-up and adjustment The losses incurred due to set up and adjustments.
Setting up means a series of operations from the
removal of jigs and fixtures to the end of production,
clearing up and cleaning, through the preparation of
jigs/tools and metal fixtures necessary for the next
product, to their attachment, adjustment, trial
processing, readjustment, measurement, production,
and finally the production. For instance, exchanging
of dies in presses and plastic injection molding
machines
b
(iii) Minor/idling stoppage Minor and idling stoppage occurs when production
is interrupted by a temporary malfunction or when a
machine is idling: for instance, idling and minor
stoppages caused by the malfunctioning of sensors
and blockages of work on chutes
b
(iv) Reduced speed These type of losses occur when (i) there is a
difference between designed speed and the actual
speed; (ii) the design speed is lower than present
technological standards or the desirable condition
For instance, even if a machine is operated at the
desired speed, in many cases the speed may have to
be reduced because of quality or mechanical
problems
c
(v) Start-up or reduced yield Start-up losses are defined as time losses (output
decline). For instance, (i) start-up after periodic
repair; (ii) start-up after suspension (long-time
stoppage); and (iii) start-up after holidays
c
(vi) Defect/rework losses Defect/rework losses are defined as volume losses
due to defects and rework Table II.
Description of nature
Notes: aTime losses; bspeed losses; cquality losses of losses
IMDS Type (iii) and (iv) losses are called “speed losses” used to measure the performance
efficiency of equipment and Type (v) and (vi) losses, i.e. are regarded as “quality
106,2 losses”.
Based on the above losses equipment availability, performance efficiency, and
quality rate is expressed as follows:

264 Equipment availability ¼ loading time 2 downtime=loading time ð1Þ


where, 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 not operating
may be because of equipment failures, set-up/adjustment requirements, exchange of
dies and other fixtures, etc.
Performance efficiency ¼ Processed amount

2 actual cycle time=operating time ð2Þ


Downloaded by UNIMEP At 06:25 08 October 2016 (PT)

where, processed amount refers to the number of items processed per day (or month),
and operating time is the difference between loading time and downtime:
Quality rate ¼ Processed amount 2 defect amount=processed amount ð3Þ
where, the defect amount represents the number of items rejected due to quality defects
and requires rework or become scrapped.
Combining equations (1)-(3), the OEE for a given operation is determined by
equation (4):
OEE ¼ availability £ performance efficiency £ quality rate ð4Þ
It can be explained from the equation (4), how TPM increases OEE?
OEE increases with increase in equipment availability, the performance efficiency
and the rate of quality of product. Increase in equipment availability reduces buffer
inventories needed to protect downstream production from breakdowns and increases
effective capacity. Reduced buffer inventories lead to decreased lead times since jobs
are not waiting as long as in queues. This capability of shorter lead-times improves the
firm’s competitive position in terms of delivery and flexibility since it is easier to
deliver multiple products or versions of products with shorter lead times. The reduced
need for buffer inventory directly reduces inventory costs and increasing effective
capacity allows more throughputs and lowers the cost per unit.
Increases in the performance efficiency reduces the need for buffer inventories and
increases effective capacity. This reinforces the benefits gained from the increased
equipment availability.
Increases in the rate of quality products means that there is less scrap and rework,
which not only reduces costs, but also yields a higher rate of quality (Kotze, 1993;
Frendall et al., 1997).

4. TPM implementation – a case


The industry selected for TPM implementation is a leading supplier of critical
assembly spares for diesel and electric locomotives. The components are supplied to
regional loco sheds as well as to South East Asian countries. The management of the
company observed that maintenance costs increased for 20-30 percent of the Manufacturing
production costs and emergency repairs were three times more expensive than the excellence
same job done in pre-planned manner. To improve the quality of the products and to
reduce operation and maintenance (O&M) costs, company plans to introduce and through TPM
implement TPM program. As a part of company’s strategic plan, the semi automated
assembly cell was selected for carrying out feasibility study. The cell consists of four
workstations and four machining centers with individual on board computer control 265
panels. Manual operations include loading/unloading of parts, final visual inspection
and packaging. The four stages/phases of TPM implementation are shown in Figure 3.
The elements involved in each stage/phase of TPM implementation are presented in
Table AI shown in the Appendix.

4.1 Stage 1. Preparatory stage


For successful implementation of TPM in the cell, TPM office commonly known as
TPM secretariat headed by senior executive of the company was formed. The
Downloaded by UNIMEP At 06:25 08 October 2016 (PT)

main task of the office was to define policies/set targets and to co-ordinate the
activities for successful implementation and promotion of TPM. Figure 4 shows
the main functions along with the organization structure of TPM secretariat. The
master plan covering key dimensions for TPM implementation was prepared.
Initially, the maintenance program based on Nakajimas seven steps of AM was
followed:
(1) initial cleaning;
(2) countermeasures for cause and effects of contamination sources;
(3) cleaning and lubrication standards;
(4) general inspection;
(5) autonomous inspection;
(6) organization and tidiness; and
(7) full implementation of AM.

To assist operators in performing maintenance tasks, cross-functional teams with


members from AM, PM and FI teams headed by respective group leaders,
with members from engineering, maintenance group and production were formed.
To upgrade the skills of operators/technicians and unearth their hidden capabilities
to solve problems, training curriculum consisting of three main modules EKT, MSD
and ATT were designed. Each module consists of various tools and techniques
(Figure 5).
These modules were specifically designed to impart necessary skill and training
both in operations and maintenance activities. Briefly described as:

Figure 3.
0 1 2 TPM implementation
3 4
stages
IMDS
106,2 Training Cell
T.P.M Promotion cell

-To develop a master training plan Office • Promotion of TPM philosophy.


-To conduct internal TPM training. • Share good or bad experience
-To prepare &update TPM course contents • To monitor the progress of TPM
-To monitor the training plan on TPM classes • To create plant-wide environment
266
. TPM Manager

F.I Team leaders Focus improvement


Figure 4. Teams
Organization for TPM
implementation A.M Team leaders Autonomous Maintenance
Teams
Downloaded by UNIMEP At 06:25 08 October 2016 (PT)

Figure 5.
Training modules

.
In EKT module the programs were designed to help operators learn more about
how their equipment functions? What common problems can occur? Why they
occur? And how these problems can be prevented?
.
The MSD module highlights the need of autonomous (inspection, lubrication,
and fastening) and PM activities (overhauling, lubrication, repair/replacements).
It also stressed on the importance of 5S activities, i.e. Seiri (organization), Seiton
(tidiness), Seiso (purity), Seiketsu (cleanliness), and Shit-suke (discipline) for
better “housekeeping” (Samuel, 1998).
.
An ATT module was basically designed to educate and train operators/technicians
regarding various data collection and interpretation methods. The module consists
of various analytical (check sheets, histograms, Pareto analysis, control charts and
run charts) and reasoning techniques (cause and effect diagrams, why-why Manufacturing
analysis?) (Wang et al., 2004). excellence
4.2 Stage 2. Introduction stage through TPM
During this stage the TPM manager convened a meeting of all TPM members and
apprise them with the TPM policy/targets to be achieved and the master plan for TPM
development. 267
4.3 Stage 3. Introduction – execution stage
The execution stage consists of several activities as listed in the Appendix Table AI
shown in Appendix. To fight against six major losses in the cell, project-teams and
small work-groups were made. To support them a system comprising of team leaders,
group leaders and coordinators was established. The routine maintenance activities
such as cleaning, lubrication, oiling and inspection were performed by the operators
and planned maintenance activities (periodic maintenance and predictive maintenance)
Downloaded by UNIMEP At 06:25 08 October 2016 (PT)

were carried out by maintenance personnel.


Because of their limited technical knowledge, a cross-functional team (known as FI)
with members from engineering, maintenance and production was formed to assist
them. FI team members helped them to search for the defects untraced by them. All the
failure causes related to machine stoppage were identified and recorded in file by FI
personnel. The data are recorded under following headings:
.
number of production center/facility;
.
time of onset of failure;
.
time to repair;
.
type of failure;
.
component(s) involved; and
.
small note describing the cause of the downtime and is collected for a period of
about 6-8 months.

The total failure causes reported were 1,190. Figure 6 shows the distribution of various
causes (mechanical failures, hydraulic failures, electronic failures, electrical failures,
human failures and software failures). With the help of analytical techniques FI
personnel calculated the statistics related mean time between failures (MTBF), and
mean time to repair (MTTR).

450
Frequency of failure

400
Human
350
300 Software
Mechanical
250 Hydraulic
200 Electrical
150 Electronic
100
50
0 Figure 6.
A B C D E F Distribution of various
failure causes
Types of failures
IMDS 4.4 Failure analysis and countermeasures
106,2 After collection of the data related to failure and maintenance aspects, thorough
analysis was carried out. Human failures accounted for the largest number of failures
followed by software and mechanical failures. From the statistics presented in Table III
it is observed that in case of human failures the MTTR is 1.23 hour with MTBF 18.29
hours. Failures in this category included any stoppage of the system attributed to
268 improper actions (such as pushing the wrong button or lever, using the wrong weight
of oil, failure to take the correct remedial actions such as not closing an interlocking
door or not tightening a bolt). Also, maintenance related human failures were there
which may be due to errors of omission or errors of commission, i. e lack of attention,
confusion in cables (put in wrong order), use of excessive force causing
instrumentation cables to break or use of less force resulting in bad connections,
untight loose bolts, etc. Software failures had a moderate MTBF, occurring at the rate
of 1 after every 70 hours with MTTR 0.98 hours 14.77 percent of the failures were
hydraulic failures with MTBF 36.13 hours. Hydraulic failures normally occur because
Downloaded by UNIMEP At 06:25 08 October 2016 (PT)

of contamination of hydraulic components which leads to increased wear and


deterioration. Mechanical failures accounted for 16.42 percent of the total, with failures
occurring at an average rate of one after every 56 hours and the mean time to repair
such failures was 1.12 hour. Untimely stoppages caused by mechanical failures were
associated with failures of components such as gears, bearings, fixtures, and tooling
9.19 percent of all the failures were classified as electrical failures. Electrical failures
displayed the second shortest MTBF, one failure after every 33.46 hours. The electrical
failures required, on average, the least amount of time to repair, i.e. 0.38 hour. Blown
fuses or dirty limit switches and failures of the electro-mechanical components such as
motors, relays, starters, and wiring were the primarily reasons for electrical failures.
Electronic failures which normally consists of failures of solid-state components such
as logic buses, power supplies and servo drives accounted for only 4.5 percent of all
failures with highest MTBF, i.e. 90.76 hour requiring an average repair time of 0.76
hour. To assist maintenance managers in understanding the failure behavior and
developing a strategic PM plans, the failure pattern exhibited by various components
used in hydraulic, electronic and mechanical subsystems is illustrated in the Appendix
Table AII, Figure A1 in appendix (Wu et al., 1992)

4.5 Countermeasures
In order to facilitate AM personnel for daily maintenance routine interventions and
recognize various trouble shootings (with the help of FI teams) associated with failures
of critical components the defect recording system was developed (Table IV). It
consists of complete record of commonly failed /repaired or replaced components

Failure causes MTBF (hours) MTTR (hours)

Human failures 18.29 1.23


Software failures 70.62 0.98
Mechanical failures 56.58 1.12
Table III. Hydraulic failures 36.13 2.13
Failure and repair Electrical failures 33.46 0.38
statistics Electronic failures 90.76 0.76
Manufacturing
Failure Mean time
Machining detection Mean between excellence
center date and repair time failures through TPM
number time (hours) (hours)
Subsystem Components 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Hydraulic Piping 269


Pumps
Solenoids
Valves
Mechanical Indexing chuck
Clamping fixtures
Gears, bearings
Tooling
Electronic and electrical (i) Inside cabinet
Contactor switches
Relays regulators
Downloaded by UNIMEP At 06:25 08 October 2016 (PT)

Magnets
(ii) On machine
Buttons
Proximity switches
Limit switches Table IV.
Encoders Recording system

associated with corresponding machining centers with details such as failure detection
date time, mean repair time and mean time between failures.
Because of there limited technical expertise, AM team members were assisted by
technicians/equipment specialists for problem identification and diagnosis. They also
helped them to fully understand the machine’s structure, operation and common areas of
bottlenecks. For instance, in case of transfer carriage stoppage, most of the breakdowns
were due to blockage which can be overcame by simple maintenance interventions, such
as cleaning the sensors and lubricating the equipment by the operators themselves,
which necessitates the importance of maintaining basic equipment by performing
cleaning, lubrication and upkeep of equipment and following Japanese 5S principles.

4.6 Mapping out improvement (Kaizen) plans


Team leaders and group coordinators mapped out improvement plans for the major
TPM losses. The information stored inside the machine in the form of reports such as:
(1) utilization reports;
(2) production reports (daily and weekly reports of parts produced); and
(3) status reports with respect to:
.
tools;
.
parts;
.
stations; and
.
pallets.

were retrieved and analyzed.


IMDS Figure 7 shows the respective failure modes associated with the failure causes.
106,2 Potential failure modes associated with each type of failures (mechanical failures,
hydraulic failures, electronic failures, electrical failures, human failures and software
failures) were selected as the target improvement areas. Then, plans for improvement
actions were made accordingly.

270 4.7 Implementation of improvements (Kaizens)


The team leaders and group leaders discussed various improvement plans suggested
by the operators with TPM manager. Then with the help of personnel from production
and design department feasibilities of such plans were worked out. Depending upon
the feasibility the plans were incorporated. These improvement plans were known as
Kaizens (small improvements), related with improvements in both production and
maintenance tasks. Production tasks include reduction in set up and adjustments
losses, reduction in cycle time, flexibility in operations and maintenance tasks include
reducing-cleaning times by devising more efficient cleaning methods, simplifying
Downloaded by UNIMEP At 06:25 08 October 2016 (PT)

lubrication tasks by devising improved lubricating procedures. Each Kaizen was


recorded with a number suggested by whom and its implementation status. The
persons were suitably rewarded for their suggestions. With the implementation of
suggestions the procedures of the TPM implementation program ends but this was not
an end but a continuous effort like Deming’s PDCA cycle (plan-do-check and act) to
achieve world-class performance (Figure 8). Step (vii) is repeated continuously to
maintain and enhance the quality level of the cell. Table V shows few of kaizens with
number and implementation status undertaken in the cell.

5. OEE measurement
The data related to production (set up time, cycle time (actual and ideal both)) and
maintenance parameters (repair or down time) was collected for the period two years
(1999-2000) before TPM implementation and after two years of TPM implementation
(2001-2002). To measure the OEE of the cell one-month data before implementation and
after implementation as shown in Table VI was used, the calculations for machine
availability, performance efficiency and the rate of quality were done according to the

Fasteners loose Omission error Parameter error


8% 7% 14%
Overloading Memory disorder
6% 9%

Fuse burnt
Pump 8% 11%
wear

6% 8%
8%
Indexing 8% Short Circuit
Figure 7. chuck Tooling 7%
Respective failure modes Sensor Motor damage
malfunction
Manufacturing
*Set goals *Organize excellence
*Define Resources
objectives *Implement
through TPM
*Prepare
plan
master plan

271
Downloaded by UNIMEP At 06:25 08 October 2016 (PT)

*Improvement *Evaluate
action Performance
*Review
*TPM awards /audits Figure 8.
*Find gaps PDCA cycle

Kaizen
Implementation number
Kaizen status Yes No

Redesign of clamping fixture for machining center No. 1 KRCF01 Y –


Redesign of clamping fixture for machining center No. 2 KRCF02 Y –
Replacement procedure for hydraulic seals KRP04 Y –
Improved procedure for lubrication KIPL02 Y – Table V.
Improved procedure calibration of inspection sensors KIPC01 Y – List of kaizens

TPM Total number of products Rework Scrap Number of quality


implementation produced quantity quantity products

Before 27,600 5,658 976 20,966 Table VI.


After 28,500 1,028 286 27,186 Performance data of cell

equations (1)-(4).The OEE measurement for cell found to be 39 percent (before TPM
implementation) and 69 percent (after TPM implementation).
In order to determine up to what level the targets/goals set up by the TPM office
were achieved? The assessment of the potential benefits (both tangible as well as the
intangible benefits) of TPM implementation is carried out. The critical measures used
to assess tangible benefits were defined as:
IMDS .
scrap percentage;
106,2 .
rework percentage;
.
availability of equipment; and
.
maintenance costs vs production costs.

The data related to these measures were collected and presented in form of
272 Figure 9(a)-(d). Figure 9(a) and (b) show that earlier scrap and rework percentage was
about 30-35 percent, and 25-30 percent, which was mainly because of sudden failures of
equipment and improper maintenance actions. Starting from year 2001 and up till the
mid of 2002, timely regular maintenance interventions performed by both AM and FI
teams had helped in achieving considerable reduction in both scrap and rework which
was about 12-15 percent at the end of year 2002. Figure 9(c) shows the percentage
availability of the cell. During the period 1999-2000 it was about (50-60 percent). But
after promotion of AM, PM and FI activities a considerable improvement in the
Downloaded by UNIMEP At 06:25 08 October 2016 (PT)

(a) 40.00%
percentage

30.00%
Scrap

20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
1999-I 2000-I 2001-I 2001-iii 2002-ii
Time period
(b) 40.00%
percentage

30.00%
Rework

20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
1999-I 1999-ii 2000-I 2000-ii 2001-I 2001-ii 2001-iii 2002-1 2002-ii 2002-iii
Time period

(c) 100%
80%
Availability

60%
40%
20%
0%
1999(i) 1999(ii) 2000(i) 2000(ii) 2001(i) 2001(ii) 2001(iii) 2002(i) 2002(ii) 2002(iii)
Time period
production costs.

(d) 30.00%
maintenance

Figure 9.
Ratio of

costs to

20.00%
(a) Scrap percentage;
(b) rework percentage; 10.00%
(c) availability; (d) ratio of
0.00%
MC to PC before and after
1999-I 1999-ii 2000-I 2000-ii 2001-I 2001-ii 2001-iii 2002-1 2002-ii 2002-iii
TPM implementation
Time period
availability level of cell was achieved. Figure 9(d) shows a considerable reduction Manufacturing
(approx.10 percent) in the ratio of maintenance costs with respect to production costs excellence
after initiation of TPM activities.
through TPM
5.1 Intangible benefits from TPM implementation
.
Setting up of cross-functional teams. Implementation of TPM in the cell had
helped to form cross-functional teams consisting of team members from
273
maintenance and production departments. Thus allowing operators to identify
and resolve many basic equipment problems with in short period of time.
.
Introduction of concept of total quality maintenance. As all members/operators
were responsible for maintaining equipments/facilities by performing AM and
PM activities (cleaning, inspection and lubrication) which had helped in
spreading and growing the concept of total quality maintenance (TQMain)
among all in the cell.
Downloaded by UNIMEP At 06:25 08 October 2016 (PT)

.
Training and skill development. The training modules (EKT, MSD, and ATT)
which were specifically designed to help operators to learn more about how their
equipment functions? What common problems can occur? Why they occur? And
how these problems could be prevented? Had helped a lot in training and
upgrading the skills. Handling of simple repair works with the assistance of FI
personnel had nurtured necessary maintenance skills in the operators for solving
the problems without causing any further delays.
.
Increased responsibility. After the TPM implementation in the cell both AM and
FI team members accepted the responsibility for equipment condition. Now they
not only concentrate on production but also perform simple maintenance tasks.
A change in the traditional syndrome “I make – you fix”, was observed.
.
Development of sense of importance for maintaining basic equipment conditions.
The implementation of TPM program had promoted more operator involvement
by performing AM (oiling, lubrication, inspection) and 5S housekeeping
activities. This had helped to generate the sense of importance for maintaining
basic equipment among the operators.

5.2 Observations and recommendations for companies going to adopt TPM


In the study the concept of TPM had been successfully employed in a semi automated
manufacturing cell of a company. The implementation not only leads to increase in
efficiency and effectiveness but also prepares the plant to meet the challenges put
forward by globally competitive economies and to achieve world class manufacturing
(WCM) status. The program can be mimicked by various process and product
industries to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of their operations. Also it is
observed from the study that TPM is a long term and never ending improvement
activity, which requires consistent management support for success of program. The
establishment of TPM office with in the company helps to develop well-conceived plan
for TPM implementation. The TPM office is responsible for the:
.
creation of a master plan;
.
promotion of TPM activities; and
.
development of a training plan for employees.
IMDS Thus, in totality the TPM activities improve the:
106,2 .
overall plant’s productivity (i.e. more effective operation and resource
utilization);
.
throughput rate (by quicker action/reaction to failure symptoms leading to
reduced downtime);
274 .
end-product quality (through better-maintained plant and machines); and
.
education and training of employees (keeps pace with the complex and new
emerging technologies).

To meet the basic objectives of TPM, i.e. maximizing OEE, providing a cost-effective
maintenance capability, etc. the tools and methods listed in the Appendix Table AII
shown in appendix can provide the additional support. Through use of these tools the
analysts particularly the team leaders and group leaders acquire greater “visibility”
with respect to the potential problems. For them identification, analysis and evaluation
of various alternatives will become easier. Because of the integrated nature of the units
Downloaded by UNIMEP At 06:25 08 October 2016 (PT)

in FMS the proper integration of these tools is also essential. The use of right tool(s)
will allow more in-depth analysis required for making decisions regarding:
.
trade-offs between corrective and PM actions; and
.
human versus machine functions.

6. Results and conclusions


It is observed from Table VII that considerable improvements in availability,
performance efficiency and quality rate were obtained after implementation of TPM
program. The availability of cell improved by 17 percent, performance efficiency by 8
percent and quality rate by almost 20 percent. The OEE measure had increased from
39 to 69 percent. Thus, in order to achieve or reach close to world-class performance
level with OEE 85 percent the cell needs to continue with its TPM implementation
efforts primarily focused on loss minimization. It was observed that increase in
equipment availability had reduced the buffer inventories and reduced buffer
inventories had lead to decreased lead times, since jobs were not waiting as long as in
queues. This capability of shorter lead-times had improved the firm’s competitive
position in terms of delivery and flexibility since it is easier to deliver multiple products
or versions of products. Increases in the performance efficiency (from 81 to 89 percent)
had reduced the need for buffer inventories. Increases in the rate of quality (from 75 to
95 percent) products means less scrap and rework, which had not only reduced the
costs (O&M), but also yielded a higher rate of quality.

Before TPM After TPM World class


implementation implementation performance
Parameters (percent) (percent) (percent)

Availability 64.2 81 90
Performance
efficiency 81 89 95
Table VII. Quality rate 75 95 99
Results OEE 39 69 85
It is concluded from the study that OEE parameters seeks to encourage the setting of Manufacturing
ambitious, but attainable, realistic goals for raising the OEE by focusing on the losses excellence
related to availability, performance and quality of a system. It prepares the plant to
meet the challenges of competitive manufacturing by adopting and implementation of through TPM
a well-conceived plan with the help of AM and FI teams for effective equipment
maintenance. Results obtained from TPM implementation show that not only
equipment effectiveness in the cell had improved but also advantages in other areas 275
such as employee friendliness (by setting up of cross-functional teams) and quality
consciousness had improved a lot. It is concluded from the study that for the
plants/units can meet the challenges of competitive manufacturing in twenty-first
century by adopting and practicing TPM as a maintenance strategy. The main
objectives of TPM implementation, i.e. high availability, production efficiency and
better quality could be achieved by:
(1) increasing operator involvement and ownership of the process;
(2) improving problem-solving skills of operators;
Downloaded by UNIMEP At 06:25 08 October 2016 (PT)

(3) refining preventive and predictive maintenance activities;


(4) focusing on reliability and maintainability aspects;
(5) using cross-functional teams consisting of operators, maintainers, engineers
and managers to improve individual employee and equipment performances;
and
(6) adopting improved procedures (in form of kaizens) for:
.
change-overs and set-ups;
.
carrying out maintenance tasks; and
.
better training of operators and maintainers.

References
Agbasi, E., Anumba, C. and Gibb, A. (2004), “Cladding sector road map for realizing the CIM
vision”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 104 No. 6, pp. 526-32.
Bateman, J. (1995), “Preventive maintenance: stand-alone manufacturing compared with cellular
manufacturing”, Industrial Management, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 19-21.
Ben-Daya, M. and Duffuaa, S.O. (1995), “Maintenance and quality: the missing link”, Journal of
Quality in Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 20-6.
Canel, C. (1997), “The successful development of information systems for FMS: some useful
lessons”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 97 No. 8, pp. 316-9.
Cebrian, L.I. and Vinegla, A.L. (2002), “The use of score card in the management of production
operations”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 102 No. 1, pp. 39-46.
Chan, F.T.S. (1999), “Evaluations of operational control rules in scheduling a flexible
manufacturing system”, Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 5,
pp. 121-32.
Chaturvedi, A.R. (1993), “FMS scheduling and control: learning to achieve multiple goals”, Expert
Systems with Applications, Vol. 6, pp. 267-86.
Cho, D.I. and Parlar, M. (1991), “A survey of maintenance models for multi-unit systems”,
European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 51, pp. 1-23.
IMDS Chou, T.C. and Hsu, L. (2005), “Towards a framework of the performance evaluation of SMEs’
industry portals”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 105 No. 4, pp. 527-44.
106,2
Coettzee, A. (1999), “A holistic approach to the maintenance problem”, Journal of Quality in
Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 276-80.
Das, S.R. and Canel, C. (2005), “An algorithm for scheduling batches of parts in a multi-cell
flexible manufacturing system”, International Journal Production Economics, Vol. 97,
276 pp. 247-62.
Dal, B., Tug well, P. and Great banks, R. (2000), “Overall equipment effectiveness as a measure of
operational improvement, a practical analysis”, International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, Vol. 20 No. 12, pp. 1488-502.
Eti, M.C., Ogaji, S.O.T. and Probert, S.D. (2004), “Implementing total productive maintenance in
Nigerian manufacturing industries”, Applied Energy, Vol. 79 No. 4, pp. 385-401.
Frendall, L.D., Patterson, J.W. and Kneedy, W.J. (1997), “Maintenance modeling its strategic
impact”, Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 440-8.
Gamila, M.A. and Motavalli, S. (2003), “A modeling technique for loading scheduling and
Downloaded by UNIMEP At 06:25 08 October 2016 (PT)

problems in FMS”, Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 19, pp. 45-54.
Hammer, H. (1987), “Availability, performance and service of FMS”, The FMS Magazine, Vol. 5
No. 4, pp. 180-6.
Jostes, R.S. and Helms, M.M. (1994), “Total productive maintenance and its link to total quality
management”, Work Study, Vol. 43 No. 7, pp. 18-20.
Jonsson, P. and Lesshammar, A. (1999), “Evaluation and improvement of manufacturing
performance measurement systems – the role of OEE”, International Journal of Operations
& Production Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 55-78.
Kennedy, W.J. Jr (1987), “Issues in the maintenance of flexible manufacturing systems”,
Maintenance Management International, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 43-52.
Kotze, D. (1993), “Consistency, accuracy lead to maximum OEE benefits”, TPM Newsletter, Vol. 4
No. 2.
Lawrence, J.J. (1999), “Use mathematical modeling to give your TPM implementation effort an
extra boost”, Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 5, pp. 62-9.
Leem, C.S. and Kim, I. (2004), “An integrated evaluation system based on the continuous
improvement model of IS performance”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 104
No. 2, pp. 115-28.
Lesshammar, M. (1999), “Evaluation and improvement of manufacturing performance
measurement systems – the role of OEE”, International Journal of Operations and
Production Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 55-78.
Ljungberg, O. (1998), “Measurement of overall equipment effectiveness as a basis for TPM
activities”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 18 No. 5,
pp. 495-507.
Liu, J. and McCarthy, B.L. (1997), “A global MILP model for FMS scheduling”, European Journal
of Operational Research, Vol. 100 Nos 3, 1, pp. 441-53.
McKone, K. and Wiess, E. (1998), “TPM: planned and autonomous maintenance: bridging the gap
between practice and research”, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 7 No. 4,
pp. 335-51.
Meredith, J.R. (1988), “Installation of flexible manufacturing systems teaches management
lessons in integration, labor, costs, and benefits”, Industrial Engineering, Vol. 20 No. 4,
pp. 17-27.
Meredith, J.R. and Suresh, N.C. (1986), “Justification techniques for advanced manufacturing Manufacturing
technologies”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 1043-57.
Mobley, R.K. (1990), An Introduction to Predictive Maintenance, Van Nostrand Reinhold,
excellence
New York, NY. through TPM
Nakajima, S. (1988), TPM: Introduction to TPM: Total Productive Maintenance, Productivity
Press Inc., Cambridge, MA.
Nikolopoulos, K., Metaxiotis, K., Lekatis, N. and Assimakopoulos, V. (2003), “Integrating 277
industrial maintenance strategy into ERP”, Industrial Management & Data Systems,
Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 184-91.
Paulli, J. (1995), “A hierarchical approach for FMS scheduling problem”, European Journal of
Operational Research, Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 32-42.
Prickett, P. (1997), “A petrinet based machine tool maintenance management system”, Industrial
Management & Data Systems, Vol. 97 No. 4, pp. 143-9.
Raouf, A. (1994), “Improving capital productivity through maintenance”, International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 14 No. 7, pp. 44-52.
Downloaded by UNIMEP At 06:25 08 October 2016 (PT)

Rodney, M.A. and Galloway, A. (2005), “Enterprise resource planning and organizational
innovation: a management perspective”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 105
No. 3, pp. 280-90.
Samuel, K.M. (1998), “5-S practice: a new tool for industrial management”, Industrial
Management & Data Systems, Vol. 98 No. 2, pp. 55-62.
Sharma, R., Kumar, D. and Kumar, P. (2005), “FLM to select suitable maintenance strategy in
process industries using MISO model”, Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineeringin
press.
Somlo, J. (2004), “Suitable switching policies for FMS scheduling”, Mechatronics, Vol. 14 No. 2,
pp. 199-225.
Swanson, L. (2001), “Linking maintenance strategies to performance”, International Journal of
Production Economics, Vol. 70, pp. 237-44.
Tajiri, M. and Gotoh, F. (1992), TPM Implementation: A Japanese Approach, McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY.
Tsang, A.H.C. (2002), “Strategic dimensions of maintenance management”, Journal of Quality in
Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 80 No. 1, pp. 7-39.
Wang, C., Luxhøj, J.T. and Johansen, J. (2004), “Applying a knowledge management modeling
tool for manufacturing vision (MV) development”, Industrial Management & Data
Systems, Vol. 104 No. 9, pp. 735-43.
Wayenbergh, G. and Pintelon, L. (2002), “A framework for maintenance concept development”,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 77, pp. 299-313.
Wu, B., Seddon, J. and Currie, W. (1992), “Computer-aided dynamic preventive maintenance
within the manufacturing environment”, International Journal of Production Research,
Vol. 30, pp. 2683-96.

Further reading
De Groote, P. (1995), “Maintenance performance analysis: a practical approach”, Journal of
Quality in Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 4-24.
Dekker, R. and Wildeman, F. et al., (1997), “A review of multi-component maintenance models
with economic dependence”, Mathematical Methods of Operations Research, Vol. 45,
pp. 411-35.
IMDS Paiva, E.L., Roth, A.V. and Fensterseifer, J.E. (2002), “Focusing information in manufacturing: a
knowledge management perspective”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 102
106,2 No. 7, pp. 381-9.

Appendix

278
Stage/phase Steps involved and description

Preparation Step (i) Declaration by Top Management to introduce TPM


State TPM objectives and place articles in an internal bulletin or
company’s newsletter
Step (ii) Launch TPM introduction educational campaign
For managerial staff: staff of the same echelon are scheduled together
for training
For General employees: slide-show presentations
Downloaded by UNIMEP At 06:25 08 October 2016 (PT)

Step (iii) Formation of promotion secretariat by forming committees and


specialized sub-committees at every level to promote TPM
Step (iv) Establish basic TPM principles and targets
Analyze existing conditions
Set benchmarks and establish targets
Predict results
Step (v) Creation of a master plan for TPM implementation
From preparation for introduction to undergoing examinations
Start of introduction Step (vi) Kickoff TPM
Reporting the plans/policy/targets for TPM development
Invite external customers, suppliers and affiliated companies
Introduction-execution Step (vii) Establishment of a system for improving the efficiency of the
production department
Kobetsu-Kaizen (fight against six major losses through project-team
activities and workshop small-group activities)
Jishu Hozen (activities in which each operator perform routine daily
inspections)
Planned maintenance activities (corrective maintenance, periodic
maintenance, predictive maintenance)
Hinshitsu Hozen (activities to set equipment conditions to eliminate
defective products)
Operation /maintenance skill development
Training of group leaders and skill development of members
Step (viii) Development of initial equipment management program
Use MP (maintenance prevention) design
Use SEM (start up equipment maintenance) practice
Use LCCA approach
Step (ix) Establishment of quality maintenance systems (QMS)
Setting conditions to reduce occurrence of defects
Step (x) Establishing system for improvement of the efficiency of
administrative department(s)
Step (xi) Establishing system for safety, health, and environment control,
i.e. zero accidents and zero pollution
Table AI. Establishment Step (xii) Prefect TPM implementation and level improvement by
AI Detailed procedure for Undergoing examinations for the receipt of PM awards
TPM implementation Setting improvement targets
Manufacturing
excellence
through TPM

279
Downloaded by UNIMEP At 06:25 08 October 2016 (PT)

Figure A1.
Common failure patterns
IMDS
Serial Evaluation
106,2 number tools/methods Description

1 BSC To provide
Comprehensive tangible strategic performance measures with
respect to four perspectives: (i) financial, (ii) customer, (iii) internal
280 processes, and (iv) learning and growth (Cebrian and Vinegla, 2002)
2 FMEA Identification of
Potential failure modes related to product and/or process
The causes, anticipated frequency, and criticality level of failures
(Etiet al., 2004)
3 LCCA Determination of
System/product/process life cycle cost elements
High-cost contributors
Cause-and-effect relationships among them
Identification of areas for improvement (i.e. cost reduction)
4 LORA Identification of suitable maintenance policies/strategies
Downloaded by UNIMEP At 06:25 08 October 2016 (PT)

Evaluation of existing maintenance policies in terms of levels of


repair
Should a component be repaired at the intermediate level of
maintenance for instance, factory maintenance shops
Should be repaired at the supplier level of maintenance, or
discarded at failure?
5 MTA Evaluation of maintenance functions/tasks in terms of task times
and sequences
Determination of supporting resource requirements
Number of personnel and skill levels required
Number of spares parts, associated inventories, tools and test
equipment required
6 PY Method to prevent defects from occurring, by greater participation
among workers in the efforts to improve processes, products and the
company as a whole
7 RAM Evaluation of system performance by determining the availability,
reliability and maintainability performances under RAM analysis
Maintainability performance ¼ exp (-t/MTTR)
Reliability performance ¼ exp (-t/MTBF)
8 RCM Evaluation of the system/process, in terms of the life cycle, to
determine the best overall program for preventive and/or CM
Establishment of a cost effective preventive maintenance program
based on information, i.e. the identification of failures, failure modes
and frequencies, criticality level (Eti et al., 2004)
Notes: BSC: balanced score-card; FMEA: failure mode effects analysis; LCCA: life cycle cost analysis;
Table AII. LORA: level of repair analysis MTA: maintenance task analysis; PY: Pokayoke; RAM: reliability
Tools and methods for availability and maintainability; RCM: reliability centered maintenance; MTTR: mean time to failures;
TPM support MTBF: mean time between failures

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com


Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
This article has been cited by:

1. Nur Ainunnazli Binti Aminuddin, Jose Arturo Garza-Reyes, Vikas Kumar, Jiju Antony, Luis Rocha-
Lona. 2016. An analysis of managerial factors affecting the implementation and use of overall equipment
effectiveness. International Journal of Production Research 54:15, 4430-4447. [CrossRef]
2. M.K. Loganathan, Girish Kumar, O.P. Gandhi. 2016. Availability evaluation of manufacturing systems
using Semi-Markov model. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 29:7, 720-735.
[CrossRef]
3. M. NOVAK, T. VUKASOVIĆ. 2016. Technical and costs efficiency in poultry pâté production. World's
Poultry Science Journal 72:02, 391-402. [CrossRef]
4. Vineet Jain, Tilak Raj. 2016. Modeling and analysis of FMS performance variables by ISM, SEM and
GTMA approach. International Journal of Production Economics 171, 84-96. [CrossRef]
5. Ademir Stefano Piechnicki Department of Education, Federal Institute of Paraná (IFPR), Telêmaco
Borba, Brazil Antonio Vanderley Herrero Sola Production Engineering, Federal University of Technology
- Paraná (UTFPR), Ponta Grossa, Brazil Flávio Trojan Production Engineering, Federal University of
Downloaded by UNIMEP At 06:25 08 October 2016 (PT)

Technology - Paraná (UTFPR), Ponta Grossa, Brazil . 2015. Decision-making towards achieving world-
class total productive maintenance. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 35:12,
1594-1621. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
6. Andrés Hernández Gómez, Carlos Escobar Toledo, Juan M. Larios Prado, Salvador Noriega Morales.
2015. Factores críticos de éxito para el despliegue del mantenimiento productivo total en plantas de
la industria maquiladora para la exportación en Ciudad Juárez: una solución factorial. Contaduría y
Administración 60, 82-106. [CrossRef]
7. Lluís Cuatrecasas-Arbós Department of Business Management, Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya,
Manresa, Spain Jordi Fortuny-Santos Department of Business management, Universitat Politècnica de
Catalunya, Manresa, Spain Patxi Ruiz-de-Arbulo-López Department of Business management, University
of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), Bilbao, Spain Carla Vintró-Sanchez Department of Business
management, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Manresa, Spain . 2015. Monitoring processes through
inventory and manufacturing lead time. Industrial Management & Data Systems 115:5, 951-970. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
8. Kym Fraser Barbara Hardy Institute, University of South Australia, Tusmore, Australia. Hans-Henrik
Hvolby Centre for Logistics, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark Tzu-Liang (Bill) Tseng Department
of Industrial, Manufacturing and System Engineering, University of Texas, El Paso, Texas, USA . 2015.
Maintenance management models: a study of the published literature to identify empirical evidence.
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 32:6, 635-664. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
9. Rajiv Sharma Mechanical Engineering Department, National Institute of Technology Hamirpur,
Hamirpur, India Manjeet Kharub Mechanical Engineering Department, National Institute of Technology
Hamirpur, Hamirpur, India . 2014. Attaining competitive positioning through SPC – an experimental
investigation from SME. Measuring Business Excellence 18:4, 86-103. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
10. Vineet Jain, Tilak Raj. 2014. Modelling and analysis of FMS productivity variables by ISM, SEM and
GTMA approach. Frontiers of Mechanical Engineering 9:3, 218-232. [CrossRef]
11. Abhishek Jain Department of Mechanical Engineering, PTU Jalandhar, Jalandhar, India Rajbir
Bhatti Mechanical Engineering Department, SBSSTC, Firozepur, India Harwinder Singh Mechanical
Engineering Department, GNDEC, Ludhiana, India . 2014. Total productive maintenance (TPM)
implementation practice. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma 5:3, 293-323. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
12. Rajiv Kumar Sharma, Rajan Gopal Sharma. 2014. Integrating Six Sigma Culture and TPM Framework
to Improve Manufacturing Performance in SMEs. Quality and Reliability Engineering International 30:5,
745-765. [CrossRef]
13. Damjan Maletič, Matjaž Maletič, Boštjan Gomišček. 2014. The impact of quality management orientation
on maintenance performance. International Journal of Production Research 52:6, 1744-1754. [CrossRef]
14. JORGE ANDRÉS VIVARES - VERGARA, WILLIAM ARIEL SARACHE - CASTRO, JULIA
CLEMENCIA NARANJO - VALENCIA. 2014. THE CONTENT OF MANUFACTURING
STRATEGY: A CASE STUDY IN COLOMBIAN INDUSTRIES. DYNA 81:183, 140. [CrossRef]
15. Rajesh Attri, Sandeep Grover, Nikhil Dev, Deepak Kumar. 2013. Analysis of barriers of total productive
maintenance (TPM). International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management 4:4, 365-377.
[CrossRef]
16. Stephen FoxVTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, Espoo, Finland Tuan DoVTT Technical
Research Centre of Finland, Espoo, Finland. 2013. Getting real about Big Data: applying critical realism
Downloaded by UNIMEP At 06:25 08 October 2016 (PT)

to analyse Big Data hype. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business 6:4, 739-760. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
17. Ranteshwar Singh, Dhaval B. Shah, Ashish M. Gohil, Milesh H. Shah. 2013. Overall Equipment
Effectiveness (OEE) Calculation - Automation through Hardware & Software Development. Procedia
Engineering 51, 579-584. [CrossRef]
18. Mandeep KaurUniversity College of Engineering, Punjabi University, Patiala, India Kanwarpreet
SinghUniversity College of Engineering, Punjabi University, Patiala, India Inderpreet Singh
AhujaUniversity College of Engineering, Punjabi University, Patiala, India. 2012. An evaluation of the
synergic implementation of TQM and TPM paradigms on business performance. International Journal of
Productivity and Performance Management 62:1, 66-84. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
19. Mei Yong Chong, Jeng Feng Chin, Halim Shah Hamzah. 2012. Transfer of total productive maintenance
practice to supply chain. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 23:3-4, 467-488. [CrossRef]
20. Damjan MaletičFaculty of Organizational Sciences, University of Maribor, Kranj, Slovenia
Matjaž MaletičFaculty of Organizational Sciences, University of Maribor, Kranj, Slovenia Boštjan
GomiščekFaculty of Organizational Sciences, University of Maribor, Kranj, Slovenia. 2012. The
relationship between continuous improvement and maintenance performance. Journal of Quality in
Maintenance Engineering 18:1, 30-41. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
21. S. K. Singh, M. K. Singh. 2012. Evaluation of Productivity, Quality and Flexibility of an Advanced
Manufacturing System. Journal of The Institution of Engineers (India): Series C 93:1, 93-101. [CrossRef]
22. Philipp A. Konecny, Jörn-Henrik Thun. 2011. Do it separately or simultaneously—An empirical analysis
of a conjoint implementation of TQM and TPM on plant performance. International Journal of Production
Economics 133:2, 496-507. [CrossRef]
23. Jeonghwan Jeon, Chulhyun Kim, Hakyeon Lee. 2011. Measuring efficiency of total productive
maintenance (TPM): a three-stage data envelopment analysis (DEA) approach. Total Quality
Management & Business Excellence 22:8, 911-924. [CrossRef]
24. Mustafa GraisaAdvanced Design and Manufacturing Engineering Centre, Nottingham Trent University,
Nottingham, UK Amin Al‐HabaibehAdvanced Design and Manufacturing Engineering Centre,
Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK. 2011. An investigation into current production
challenges facing the Libyan cement industry and the need for innovative total productive maintenance
(TPM) strategy. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 22:4, 541-558. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
25. A.J. ThomasNewport Business School, University of Wales Newport, Newport, UK J. ChardUniversity
of Wales Newport, Newport, UK E. JohnCardiff University, Cardiff, UK A. DaviesCardiff University,
Cardiff, UK M. FrancisNewport Business School, University of Wales Newport, Newport, UK. 2011.
Defining a bearing replacement strategy using Monte Carlo methods. International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management 28:2, 155-168. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
26. Halim Mad LazimLecturer in the Operations Department, College of Business, Universiti Utara Malaysia,
Sintok, Malaysia T. RamayahAssociate Professor in the Technology Management Lab, School of
Management, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Minden, Malaysia. 2010. Maintenance strategy in Malaysian
manufacturing companies: a total productive maintenance (TPM) approach. Business Strategy Series 11:6,
387-396. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
27. Rajiv Kumar SharmaDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, NIT Hamirpur, India Pooja
SharmaDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, NIT Hamirpur, India. 2010. System failure
behavior and maintenance decision making using, RCA, FMEA and FM. Journal of Quality in
Downloaded by UNIMEP At 06:25 08 October 2016 (PT)

Maintenance Engineering 16:1, 64-88. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


28. S. VinodhDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, PSG College of Technology, Coimbatore, India
G. SundararajDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, PSG College of Technology, Coimbatore, India
S.R. DevadasanDepartment of Production Engineering, PSG College of Technology, Coimbatore,
India D. RajanayagamSalzer Electronics Limited, Coimbatore, India. 2009. Agility through CAD/CAM
integration. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 20:2, 197-217. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
29. S. Vinodh, G. Sundararaj, S.R. Devadasan, R. Maharaja, D. Rajanayagam, S.K. Goyal. 2008. DESSAC: a
decision support system for quantifying and analysing agility. International Journal of Production Research
46:23, 6759-6780. [CrossRef]
30. I.P.S. AhujaUniversity College of Engineering, Punjabi University, Patiala, India J.S. KhambaUniversity
College of Engineering, Punjabi University, Patiala, India. 2008. Assessment of contributions of successful
TPM initiatives towards competitive manufacturing. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering 14:4,
356-374. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
31. Rajiv Kumar Sharma, Dinesh Kumar, Pradeep Kumar. 2008. Fuzzy modeling of system behavior for risk
and reliability analysis. International Journal of Systems Science 39:6, 563-581. [CrossRef]
32. Rajiv Kumar Sharma, Sunand Kumar. 2008. Performance modeling in critical engineering systems using
RAM analysis. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 93:6, 913-919. [CrossRef]
33. G. AnandMechanical Engineering Group, Birla Institute of Technology & Science, Pilani, India Rambabu
KodaliMechanical Engineering Group, Birla Institute of Technology & Science, Pilani, India. 2008.
Selection of lean manufacturing systems using the PROMETHEE. Journal of Modelling in Management
3:1, 40-70. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
34. Adam Adgar, Aitor Arnaiz, Erkki Jantunen. 2008. Challenges in the Development of an E-Maintenance
System. IFAC Proceedings Volumes 41:3, 257-262. [CrossRef]
35. Rajiv Kumar Sharma, Dinesh Kumar, Pradeep Kumar. 2007. Quality costing in process industries through
QCAS: a practical case. International Journal of Production Research 45:15, 3381-3403. [CrossRef]
36. Rajiv Kumar SharmaDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, National Institute of Technology (formerly
Regional Engineering College), Himachal Pradesh, India Dinesh KumarDepartment of Mechanical
and Industrial Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, IIT Roorkee, Roorkee, India Pradeep
KumarDepartment of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, IIT
Roorkee, Roorkee, India. 2007. Modeling and analysing system failure behaviour using RCA, FMEA and
NHPPP models. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 24:5, 525-546. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
37. Panagiotis TsarouhasDepartment of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, University of Thessaly,
Volos, Greece. 2007. Implementation of total productive maintenance in food industry: a case study.
Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering 13:1, 5-18. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
38. Zulfiqar KhanDepartment of Knowledge and Information Management, Faculty of Engineering
and Computing, Coventry University, Coventry, UK Rajeev K. BaliDepartment of Knowledge and
Information Management, Faculty of Engineering and Computing, Coventry University, Coventry, UK
Nilmini WickramasingheStuart Graduate School of Business, Illinois Institute of Technology, Center for
the Management Medical Technology, Chicago, Illinois, USA. 2007. Developing a BPI framework and
PAM for SMEs. Industrial Management & Data Systems 107:3, 345-360. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
39. Josu TakalaDepartment of Production, University of Vaasa, Vaasa, Finland Jarkko HirveläDepartment
of Production, University of Vaasa, Vaasa, Finland Yang LiuDepartment of Production, University of
Downloaded by UNIMEP At 06:25 08 October 2016 (PT)

Vaasa, Vaasa, Finland Dušan MalindžákTechnical University of Kosice, Kosice, Slovakia. 2007. Global
manufacturing strategies require “dynamic engineers”?. Industrial Management & Data Systems 107:3,
326-344. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
40. Kijpokin KasemsapThe Role of Lean Production on Organizational Performance 358-388. [CrossRef]
41. Kijpokin KasemsapThe Role of Lean Production on Organizational Performance 1578-1610. [CrossRef]