Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering

A sequential TPM-based scheme for improving production effectiveness presented

with a case study
Omar Bataineh, Tarek Al-Hawari, Hussam Alshraideh, Dorid Dalalah,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Omar Bataineh, Tarek Al-Hawari, Hussam Alshraideh, Dorid Dalalah, (2019) "A sequential TPM-
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 05:54 13 January 2019 (PT)

based scheme for improving production effectiveness presented with a case study", Journal of Quality
in Maintenance Engineering, https://doi.org/10.1108/JQME-07-2017-0045
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/JQME-07-2017-0045
Downloaded on: 13 January 2019, At: 05:54 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 34 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:320271 []
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 on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1355-2511.htm

Production
A sequential TPM-based scheme effectiveness
for improving production
effectiveness presented with
a case study
Omar Bataineh, Tarek Al-Hawari, Hussam Alshraideh and Received 6 July 2017
Revised 6 January 2018
Dorid Dalalah Accepted 28 January 2018
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 05:54 13 January 2019 (PT)

Department of Industrial Engineering,

Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to improve production effectiveness of equipment by facilitating the
implementation of the key principles of total productive maintenance (TPM).
Design/methodology/approach – A sequential TPM-based scheme consisting of 13 procedural steps is
proposed. The steps cover the basic aspects of a generic improvement system, i.e. planning, implementation,
checking, corrective action and control.
Findings – The proposed scheme was effective in increasing the overall equipment effectiveness by
62.6 percent over a nine-month period only. This was a direct reflection of improvements in equipment
availability, efficiency and product quality. A positive feedback regarding the smooth implementation of the
scheme was also received from the responsible maintenance staff.
Research limitations/implications – The proposed scheme is intended mainly to the manufacturing
industrial sector, which utilizes failure-prone equipment in running operations.
Originality/value – This study presents an original scheme that tries to avoid the many barriers
of success frequently encountered during the implementation of TPM schemes, as reported in the
literature. This scheme is unique in integrating between 5S and safety, health and environment
initiatives, by capitalizing on the close relation between the two initiatives, and simplifying procedures for
measuring how well the two initiatives are implemented in an organization in one score card. Different
from previous studies, the scheme treats both “education and training” and 6S as a foundation to the core
TPM principles.
Keywords 5S, Overall equipment effectiveness, Total productive maintenance, 6S,
Autonomous maintenance
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
In today’s global market, effective maintenance strategies play an important role for a
business to remain ahead of the competition. A successful maintenance strategy can help
achieve higher productivity, better quality, less downtimes and improved safety. Knowing
that maintenance represents a large component of the operating cost in most industries
(reaches up to 40 percent of the value added to a product as it moves through the production
chain (Ahuja and Khamba, 2008; Eti et al., 2006), reducing the cost of maintenance is thus an
important outcome of effective maintenance. With greater awareness by leading
corporations around the globe, they moved to look for new and proactive maintenance
strategies such as reliability centered maintenance, Predictive Maintenance (PM) and total
productive maintenance (TPM) (Sharma et al., 2005).
As a lean strategy, TPM aims to minimize major losses that are considered significant in
lowering the efficiency of the production system. These include equipment breakdown
losses, setup/adjustment losses, idling losses, start-up losses and defect/rework losses Journal of Quality in Maintenance
Engineering
(Gupta et al., 2001). TPM requires that all individuals in the company from top management © Emerald Publishing Limited
1355-2511
to shop floor staff be committed to the TPM program, which explains why the name begins DOI 10.1108/JQME-07-2017-0045
 JQME with “T for Total” (Mwanza and Mbohwa, 2015). In a TPM program, maintenance staff and
engineers should be ahead of others by collaborating collectively with each other.
The beginnings of TPM trace back to around the 1960 when Toyota’s Nippon Denso
Company applied the concept of “Preventive Maintenance” plant-wide (Bajaj et al., 2013).
As their need for maintenance personnel was bigger, the decision was to give the operators
more responsibility for the equipment’s routine maintenance, which was the beginning of the
so-called TPM’s “Autonomous Maintenance” (Nakajima, 1988). After that, the Japanese
Institute of Plant Engineers awarded Nippon Denso the distinguished plant prize for
implementing and developing TPM by making all the employees participate in the quality
circles, and making each one of them take part in productive maintenance implementation (Sun
et al., 2003). By the 1970s, the Japanese started to teach the strategies of TPM internationally.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 05:54 13 January 2019 (PT)

TPM evolved as a modification to the original concepts of total quality management so

that it fits better to the maintenance environment. Not surprisingly, both are considered long
term strategies that rely on similar philosophies such as employee empowerment and total
commitment by top management to the program (Al-Hassan et al., 2000). Since its beginning,
the core activities in TPM have evolved considerably due to the contributions by many
researchers in the field. These activities are often referred to as pillars, or principles.
However, TPM did not evolve to become a standard system yet (Sivaram et al., 2014). This
can be seen as a reflection to differences that exist among researchers in the field about what
makes the key principles in TPM and the best scheme for applying them.

2. Literature review
The literature is rich in research studies on TPM due to the significance of this methodology to
a wide range of activities in the industry. As the spectrum of schemes, adopted principles/
pillars and TPM applications vary from one study to another, some authors have devoted
stand-alone papers to review the literature related to TPM (e.g. Jain et al., 2014; Kareem and
Talib, 2015). Ahuja and Khamba (2008) provided a thorough listing of publications on TPM
and classified them according to various attributes, e.g. TPM frameworks, implementation
practices, applications and benefits. They also tried to highlight all the factors responsible for
eliminating barriers in a successful TPM implementation program. In this review, the focus
will be on addressing the impact of TPM by showing representative case studies from the
industry, and the key principles and implementation schemes introduced in the literature.

2.1 Impact of TPM

Many studies in the literature show that TPM initiatives have a significant impact on
organizations when implemented successfully. Gupta and Vardhan (2016) studied the TPM
implementation in a reputed tractors manufacturing industry in India. Thgeir study showed
that TPM had reduced production cost and improved OEE, which resulted in doubling the
sales revenue and tripling the profit within a period of three years. Bon and Karim (2011)
conducted a study to identify the factors which contribute to defects during the
manufacturing of gloves. The high rate of defects caused the company to bear high cost due
to lost product and poor product quality. By applying TPM, four major factors that cause
defects were identified: human negligence, low quality of raw materials, low-performing
machines and work procedures. In addition, by focusing their efforts on the machines in
terms of engine damage, they began collecting data and analyze it using descriptive
statistics and Pareto charts. This led to significant reduction in machine failures/errors and
ultimately gloves’ defects.
Peimbert-García et al. (2012) suggested that TPM greatly benefits the organization to
reduce its production costs. To verify that, they presented a Cost of Quality model to
quantify the benefits associated with TPM implementation. Kodali and Chandra (2001)
employed a multi-attribute decision model to assess the justification of TPM using the
 analytical hierarchy process. Two alternatives were used for comparison: TPM system and Production
traditional maintenance system. By evaluating the two alternatives based on the set of effectiveness
attributes and sub-attributes used, they confirmed that the TPM system is more favorable
compared to the traditional maintenance system. Their results also showed that TPM
brings noticeable improvements in terms of equipment effectiveness, better products
quality, shorter delivery times and conducive work environment.
Most cases on the implementation of TPM come from the manufacturing sector. McKone
et al. (2001) investigated the relationship between TPM and manufacturing performance.
They showed that TPM has a positive and significant relationship with low cost, high levels
of quality and strong delivery performance. Singh et al. (2013) applied TPM to three types of
machines that were used in an automobile manufacturing organization. Several problems
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 05:54 13 January 2019 (PT)

were identified before TPM implementation, such as: maintenance cost was very high;
emergency repairs were three times more expensive than the actual cost of the job; and total
idle time for equipment was too high. A code was also assigned to ease the identification of
machines. Every machine was studied in details, and the job of each part was identified. The
OEE for every machine was calculated before and after implementation. As a result of their
TPM implementation, OEE increased between 15 and 30 percent for the various machines.
Ahuja and Kumar (2009) reported on the TPM implementation at Tata Steel Tubes
Strategic Business Unit, India. This company produces precision welded tubes using the
high frequency induction welding process. Training and education of employees was
conducted with the help of consultants from the Japan Institute of Plant Maintenance
( JIPM). Six TPM circles were formed, and eight pillar heads were appointed. The TPM
circles and pillar heads were monthly reviewed by an Engineer-in-Charge. As a result of the
TPM implementation, great benefits were achieved by the company including a 78 percent
improvement in productivity; 59 percent improvement in OEE; 63 percent reduction in
equipment breakdowns; and 22 percent improvement in delivery compliance.
Singh and Ahuja (2015) evaluated the contributions of TPM initiatives to the
performance of the Indian manufacturing industry. Their study revealed that proactive
TPM initiatives have helped the manufacturing organization immensely in improving
synergy between the maintenance department and the rest of the manufacturing functions,
resulting in elimination of defects, improved process reliability and OEE, and reduction of
manufacturing costs.
Although TPM is mainly used to improve the performance of machines and production
lines in the manufacturing sector, it can also be used to help in non-manufacturing sectors.
Haddad (2012) implemented TPM in King Abdullah University Hospital (KAUH) in Jordan.
The study was applied through autonomous maintenance (AM), preventive maintenance
(PM) and 5S (a workplace organization method that consists of five successive stages, each
beginning with an S as follows: sort, set-in-order, shine, standardize and sustain). Data were
collected by doing interviews followed by observations and documents gathering. In
addition, they did an interview protocol to collect accurate information that was prepared
with list of questions. Corrective changes were then carried out in the medical devices and
workplace. As a result, failure rate in the medical devices used was reduced. Andersson et al.
(2015) studied the application of TPM in a Swedish telecom company that is trying to adopt
TPM in an office context. Empirical data were collected by on-site interviews and e-mailed
questionnaires. Documents, customer presentations and information boards in the operation
were regarded as the machine of the office operator. An implementation procedure
consisting of three steps (define, implement and sustain) was devised. Their results showed
that the TPM structure had reduced individual responsibility, emphasized team
responsibility and reduced errors connected to mobility and high workload on an individual.
The success of TPM implementation is never easy and not always granted. For instance,
Kilenstam and Odenrick (2000) examined a food processing company in Sweden for their
 JQME implementation of TPM. As a consequence of different factors, a resistance to change
emerged, and the TPM program did not go smoothly as expected. Accordingly, they tried to
identify the causes of resistance and offer recommendations on how to accelerate the
implementation. Following a series of qualitative interviews, they were able identify the
following factors: low levels of participation, negative experiences, lack of trust in leadership,
bad timing, lack of resources, low levels of competence and a diminished feeling of ownership.
Ng et al. (2011) studied the literature for the critical success factors of TPM implementation.
Their work indicated that factors such as top management’s commitment, cultural change,
education/training, clear vision, effective communication, language problems and
performance measure definition for TPM are all key to the TPM implementation.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 05:54 13 January 2019 (PT)

2.2 Principles and schemes

In the context of TPM implementation over the last three decades, various sets of principles
had been used by researchers and consultants. For example, Steinbacher and Steinbacher
(1993) proposed a TPM program based on five principles: maintenance prevention,
autonomous maintenance, corrective maintenance, preventive maintenance and PM. In their
proposal, they treated training and education as a foundation to all other pillars. Swanson
(2001) considered team work, operator involvement, training and education, and preventive
maintenance as the four basic principles of TPM. In addition to these four principles, McKone
et al. (2001) added early equipment design and early product design as two more key principles
of TPM. A very common version of the TPM principles is the one promoted by the JIPM,
which includes eight principles (Rodrigues and Hatakeyama, 2006). These are autonomous
maintenance, focused maintenance, planned maintenance, quality maintenance, training and
education, development management, office TPM, and safety, health and environment (SHE).
Regardless of the principles’ set adopted for the TPM program, the choice of which
scheme to use is of great importance. According to Attri et al. (2013), there are certain
enablers, which help in the implementation of TPM. They tried to identify these enablers
through the literature, then rank them using a questionnaire-based survey and interpretive
structural modeling approach. Based on their work, they concluded that the TPM
implementation scheme is one of the key enablers for the TPM success.
One of the early TPM implementation schemes is attributed to Nakajima who
presented a 12-step TPM program to be implemented in four stages (Nakajima, 1988).
These stages begin with preparation, followed by preliminary implementation, then TPM
implementation and open-end with stabilization. In each step, a list of activities was
suggested by Nakajima. Naguib (1993) proposed a TPM model consisting of five stages:
an awareness stage, a restructuring stage of the manufacturing organization, a planning
stage, an implementation stage and an assessment stage. The awareness stage was
proposed to obtain management commitment and support, whereas the restructuring
stage was suggested to integrate maintenance in production departments to cover TPM
activities related to equipment effectiveness.
Pirsig (2004) emphasized seven broad elements in any TPM implementation program,
which include asset strategy, empowerment, resource planning and scheduling, systems
and procedures, measurement, continuous improvement and processes. These elements
were complimented with four main themes: training, decentralization, maintenance
prevention and multi-skilling. Leflar (2001) presented a plan to guide the TPM
implementation by following five steps including restoring equipment to new condition,
identifying complete maintenance plans, implementing maintenance plans with precision,
preventing recurring machine failures, and improving machine productivity.
Sivaram et al. (2014) proposed a model named as TPM 9001:2008 which integrates
between TPM and ISO 9001 certification. In their model, the eight TPM principles promoted
by JIPM were fitted into the five major clauses of ISO 9001:2008 standard. Considering that
 not a single TPM scheme is only in use, and that there is no single right method for TPM Production
implementation, Mishra et al. (2008) tried to help the decision maker on which framework to effectiveness
adopt. They performed a comparative study of these frameworks using a strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities and threats analysis. They also provided a list of key success
factors for the implementation of TPM.

3. The sequential TPM-based scheme

A TPM-based scheme is proposed in this study for the generic organization that deals with
failure-prone equipment to guide its implementation of the key principles of TPM. The
scheme is made sequential to aid on where to start and be aware of the next steps to take at
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 05:54 13 January 2019 (PT)

each stage. Although the scheme is very specific on steps, it is not too detailed to avoid being
restrictive in terms of application. A case study is then presented to further describe the
scheme through application to the considered case as well as to test its effectiveness.
The proposed scheme consists of thirteen procedural steps that are further classified into
six phases, namely, planning, implementation, checking, corrective action, verification and
control, as shown in Figure 1. The thirteen steps can be described as follows:
(1) build a team that supervises the TPM implementation;
(2) conduct organization-wide education, and general preparations;
(3) strategically assess the current situation of all producing units in the organization;
(4) select a model production line based on the outcome of the strategic assessment;
(5) measure the current overall equipment effectiveness (OEE) for the model production
line;
(6) conduct technical training for operators in the organization;
(7) the following tasks need to be carried out in parallel:
• apply 6S (5S+1);
• conduct autonomous maintenance;
• generate and implement an action plan to maintain production equipment; and
• generate and implement an action plan to improve quality of products.
(8) conduct a failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA);
(9) apply a cause and effect analysis (CEA);
(10) implement an out of control action plan (OCAP);
(11) measure the OEE after the implementation of TPM;
(12) compare the old and new OEEs; and
(13) if the OEE is adequately improved, then apply control measures to sustain
improvements; otherwise go back to step 8.
In the above scheme, a sixth S is added to the 5S workplace organization method to cover
the principle of SHE, where S stands for SHE. The above steps are meant to apply the
following six principles of TPM:
(1) P1: education and training (general education of staff on TPM program and
technical training of operators).
(2) P2: autonomous maintenance (operators should perform the routine maintenance
tasks).
 JQME 1. Build TPM
Team

P1
2. Education
3. Strategic
And General
Assessment
Preparation

Planning
4. Choose
Model
Production Line
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 05:54 13 January 2019 (PT)

5. Measure
OEE

P1
6. Operator
Training
Implementation

P6 P2 P3 P5
7b. Apply 7c. Action Plan 7d. Action Plan
7a. Apply 6S Autonomous To Maintain To
Maintenance Equipment Improve Quality

P4
8. Failure Mode
and Effect
Analysis
Checking

P4
9. Cause and
Effect Analysis

P4
Corrective
Action

10. Out-of-
Control Action
Plan

11. Measure
Verification

OEE

12. System No
Improved?
Figure 1.
Flow chart of Yes
Control

the proposed TPM-

based scheme 13. Control Plan

(3) P3: planned maintenance (establish preventive, corrective, and/or PM plans for
equipment).
(4) P4: focused maintenance (comprises all activities that are focused on improvement
of equipment effectiveness).
 (5) P5: quality maintenance (process control system that relates between product Production
quality and equipment’s condition). effectiveness
(6) P6: SHE (assure safety and health of all staff and protect the environment).
The six TPM principles are mapped to the relevant steps of the proposed scheme, as shown
in Figure 1. Each principle is marked on top of the associated procedural step’s box using its
P-numbered symbol. For example, the first principle of education and training is marked as
P1 on top of the boxes for steps 2 and 6.
The proposed scheme differs from the other schemes reported in the literature in terms of
the principles adopted and/or the structure used. For example, “education and training” and 6S
are both used in the proposed scheme as a foundation to the core TPM principles, i.e.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 05:54 13 January 2019 (PT)

autonomous maintenance, planned maintenance, focused maintenance and quality

maintenance. In comparison, and as stated earlier in the literature review, Steinbacher and
Steinbacher (1993) treated education and training alone as a foundation to all TPM principles,
while in the JIPM model for TPM, 5S was considered as a foundation to all TPM principles
(Rodrigues and Hatakeyama, 2006). This variation in the proposed scheme is needed because
education and training of operators as well as 6S, which promotes more organization at the
workplace and help to protect operators and the environment from harm, are fundamental to
better performance of working staff and ultimately improved equipment effectiveness.
Therefore, steps 2, 6 and 7a, which apply education, training and 6S, respectively, are precedent
to those steps (7c–d, 8, 9, 10) covering the core TPM principles (P2–P5) in the proposed scheme.
The integration between 5S and SHE is also unique in the proposed scheme compared to
previous studies, which treat them independently, as in Nakajima (1988) and the JIPM model
(Rodrigues and Hatakeyama, 2006). This integration capitalizes on the relation between the
two initiatives, as 5S advances safety in the work area by ensuring an environment that is
clean, organized and with no unnecessary items in the way. This helps measure how well
the two initiatives are implemented in an organization in one score card and producing what
can be called “6S Score.”
Besides, the proposed scheme passes on principles such as “Office TPM,” which is
sometimes adopted in TPM studies. This principle aims to improve productivity and
efficiency in the administrative functions of the organization by extending the application of
principles such as focused maintenance and quality maintenance of TPM to these functions.
This is seen here as a divergence of effort and attention that should be given to the
maintenance department that is dealing with the running equipment. Adopting such a
principle may also contribute to the complexity of the TPM program, which is known to be a
major obstacle to a successful TPM implementation and associated with other barriers of
success such as the resistance to change by the working staff (Ahuja and Khamba, 2008).

4. Case study
United Beverage Company in Kuwait (KSCC) has 11 production lines, which are producing
bottles filled with different beverage’s products, such as Pepsi, 7UP, Mountain Dew, Aquafina,
Tropicana, Barrio, Frutz and Gatorade. Some of the lines have low performance because of
problems in production. The aim is set to improve performance through applying the
principles of TPM on a selected low-performing line. Once the performance of this line is
enhanced, the methodology used can be followed to other lines to improve them in the future.
The project began in early February 2015 after establishing contact with KSCC. The
judgment was to apply the TPM-based scheme proposed in this study to help the company
achieve their goal. A meeting was held thereafter to form a TPM team that will be
responsible for the implementation of the scheme. As the maintenance department at KSCC
was conducting some activities that were in line with TPM initiatives, and data were already
being collected, the application of the scheme was greatly facilitated.
 JQME The timeline for the project was then planned such that the model production line will be
selected by March 2015, and the proposed scheme will be fully enforced by December 2015,
when initial results of the TPM-based scheme are expected to be available for top
management. A target was set by the company to achieve a relative improvement of
50 percent in OEE by the end of year.

5. Implementation of the TPM-based scheme

5.1 Planning
5.1.1 Build a TPM team. The first step in TPM implementation is to form a team that will
guide the implementation of the TPM-based scheme. Due to the strong belief by the top
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 05:54 13 January 2019 (PT)

management at KSCC in the potential benefits of the TPM program, this went out very
smoothly. Thus, a team consisting of four members and a leader was formed. The team
leader was the chief production manager. The members were the maintenance manager,
electrical engineer, financial manager and shift-in-charge.
5.1.2 Education and general preparations. One of the first tasks conducted after forming
the TPM team was to hold a kick-off meeting and announce the launch of the TPM program
to everyone working at KSCC. The TPM team then drafted an educational program to
inform and educate the various staff at KSCC about TPM activities, their impact on
production performance and the need of productive participation by everyone in the
organization. Roles and responsibilities were then defined for individuals to be involved
directly in the implementation of the TPM program. In addition, a master plan was
generated to check whether the TPM scheme’s implementation is progressing accordingly.
5.1.3 Strategic assessment. One of the important decisions to take at the beginning of
TPM implementation is to select the model production line. Linking this selection to the
strategic goals of the organization (referred to here as strategic assessment) is very useful in
promoting the TPM program within the organization, especially among top management.
This implies selecting a line that represents the best value opportunity as the model line.
This requires looking for a production line that generates high revenue (currently and in the
foreseeable future) with low performance. In this context, line utilization was used as a
measure of performance. Utilization was calculated according to the following equation:

P
U tilization ¼  100%; (1)
RT

where P is the number of actual units produced per day (unit), R is the rate of production per
line (unit/h) and T is the work hours per day per line (h).
Data were collected from the factory to calculate the utilization for each of the 11
production lines at KSCC for the months of January, February and March. Summary for the
utilization as averaged over the previous three months is shown in Table I. It can be noted
from this table that the glass line has the least utilization for the past three months, thus it is
the least performing. To address economical importance, the revenue of each line (measured
in Kuwaiti Dinars, KWD) was calculated over the three months period as:

Revenue ¼ V  C; (2)

where V is the total volume of units produced in a three months’ time (unit), and R is the cost
per unit (KWD/unit).
Results for the revenue (calculated for the three months) are shown in Table I. From this
table, it can be noted that the can line 2 has the highest revenue; thus, it can be considered
the most important. If we consider both performance (in terms of utilization) and importance
 Type of production Average utilization 3 months’ revenue Revenue to utilization ratio
Production
line (%) (KWD) (RUR) effectiveness
Can line 1 69.6 1,570,256 22,561.15
Can line 2 75.0 3,896,714 51,956.19
Glass line 63.4 1,930,185 30,444.56
PET 1 66.4 310,002 4,668.705
PET 2 71.3 989,920 13,883.87
TB 19-1 75.1 777,451 10,352.21
TB 19-2 74.7 673,015 9,009.572
A3 Flex 74.3 852,487 11,473.58
Aquafina 1 65.8 1,652,930 25,120.52 Table I.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 05:54 13 January 2019 (PT)

Aquafina 2 64.5 1,602,930 24,851.63 Utilization for each

Aquafina 3 66.1 1,712,930 25,914.22 line in three months

(in terms of revenue), then it is intuitive to calculate the revenue to utilization ratio (RUR), as
shown in Table I.
5.1.4 Selecting a model production line. Since can line 2 has the highest RUR value, then it
should be a first choice when it comes to applying TPM. Given the fact that can line 2 was
scheduled to be replaced by a new line by the end of the 2016 year, then the glass line
became a first choice since it has the second largest RUR value. The Glass line is 15 years
old and can produce glass bottles at a maximum speed of 22,500 bottles/h. The bottles
produced from this line are sized at 250 mL. The line consists of a number of stages
arranged in a serial configuration. These stages include depalletizing, which is the
unloading of empty bottles from the bulk pallets, bottle gliding, printing, rinsing, filling,
capping, inspection, conveying, rapping and palletizing. At the filling stage, the bottles are
filled with drink products of Pepsi, 7UP, Mountain Dew, Miranda or Frutz. In a late stage of
this line, the bottles are assembled into packs of 24 bottles/pack.
5.1.5 Measuring overall equipment effectiveness. A widely accepted metric used for
measuring the success of a TPM program is the OEE ( Jeong and Phillips, 2001). Thus, OEE
was chosen as the key performance measure for assessing performance of the Glass
production line before and after TPM implementation. The main components of OEE are
availability, efficiency and quality (Chan et al., 2005). The OEE is calculated according to the
following equation:
OEE ¼ Quality  Availability  Ef f iciency; (3)
where:
Produced Units  Rejected Units
Quality ¼  100%; (4)
Produced Units

Time of Operation
Availability ¼  100%; (5)
Time of Loading

Cycle Time  Produced Units

Ef f iciency ¼  100%: (6)
Time of Operation

The OEE was calculated before TPM implementation for the month of March. The results for
Quality, Availability, Efficiency and OEE were, respectively, 99.82, 68.60, 51.50 and 35.27 percent.
Thus, the level of OEE is very low, which is indicative of poor overall performance.
 JQME 5.1.6 Operator training. Training is one of the basic principles of TPM that was applied
in order to improve operators’ skills. Operators need to work on their machines with high
skill, and be able to diagnose emerging problems and solve it. However, extensive training
can be very expensive to the company, or may not be affordable. In order to solve this
problem, operators were classified according to their skill level into four grades: A, B, C and
D. Operators who possessed change-over skills, operation skills and maintenance skills were
given Grade A classification. Operators possessed change-over skills and excellent
operation skills were given Grade B. Grade C operators possessed only good operation
skills. Finally, Grade D operators had basic knowledge of machine operation. Then, training
was programmed in a way so that operators of Grade B, C and D would be trained by grade
A operators once, twice and four times per month, respectively.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 05:54 13 January 2019 (PT)

5.2 Implementation
5.2.1 Applying 6S. The 6S is an extension of the 5S lean method typically used for
workplace organization as the foundation of the TPM methodology. It was applied at KSCC
to clean and organize the workplace in order to make it easier to solve problems, thus
facilitating TPM implementation for the Glass line. There are six phases in 6S, each begins
with an S: sort, set in order, shine, standardize, SHE and sustain. In each phase, certain item
questions should be answered. The list of items should be generated as suitable to the
intended application and/or facility.
To ensure that all 6S policies are followed in daily work, a checklist is used by applicable
departments among the facility, as shown in Table II. This checklist includes a 6S Score on a
scale of 0 to 100, which is used to monitor the level of compliance in the 6S implementation.
To calculate this score, then the number of violations under each item of a phase need to be
identified first. An item corresponding to zero violations thus gets 5 (the maximum item
score), one violation gets 4, and so on till five violations or more which gets 1 (the minimum
item score). Then, all item scores, where a total of 20 items are present in the checklist, are
summed up to give the overall 6S Score. Any score above the target value of 75 is considered
satisfactory; otherwise, a warning is issued triggering an investigation on the areas of
deficiency in 6S implementation and how to improve it.
5.2.2 Autonomous maintenance. Autonomous maintenance is aimed at developing the
operators of the machines so that they can carry out the simple maintenance tasks by
themselves, thus freeing up the dedicated maintenance technicians to focus on the other
corrective and preventive maintenance actions. This requires training the operators to
perform the intended maintenance tasks safely, such as general cleaning, oil lubrication, bolt
tightening, inspection and monitoring. This added responsibility to the operators allows
them to better understand the functioning of their machines and helps develop a sense of
ownership in them, which reflects positively on their performance.
In applying autonomous maintenance to the various machines in the glass line,
a list of the required maintenance actions was generated for each machine, as shown
in Table III. In this table, any maintenance action that is conducted periodically
(weekly, monthly or annually) is considered a kind of preventive maintenance. Any
maintenance action that is conducted upon a functional failure or defective component,
then it is considered a kind of corrective maintenance. Maintenance actions belonging to
autonomous maintenance thus are of the preventive maintenance type, but not all
preventive maintenance actions are those of autonomous maintenance. Therefore, the
maintenance actions corresponding to autonomous maintenance are differentiated from
the other ones by being typed in italic font and ends with the (AM) abbreviation. This
gives machine operators clarity of which maintenance actions will they be responsible for
and at what frequency.
 Number of violations 5 3–4 2 1 0
Production
Phase Item Score 1 2 3 4 5 effectiveness
Sort Distinguish between the needed and not needed SUM
Are only the required parts, materials, tools present in the work area? x 11
Are unnecessary items been removed from the work area? x
Are personal belongings and paperwork properly stored? x
Set in order Everything should be in the right place
Are walkways clearly marked and identified? x 10
Are all parts, tools, and equipment put in their correct locations? x
Are all items properly labeled? x
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 05:54 13 January 2019 (PT)

Shine Keep the workplace and surfaces clean

Are cleaning equipment and materials easily accessible? x 14
Are tools, equipment, and furniture kept clean? x
Are designated walkways free of dirt, liquid and oil? x
Standardize Maintain and monitor the first three categories
Are display boards used and up to date? x 12
Have specific cleaning tasks been assigned? x
Are tools and materials returned to their locations after use regularly? x
SHE Stay safe, healthy and protect the environment
Are operators wearing suitable protective equipment? x 19
Does the workplace has suitable First Aid that is accessible to everyone? x
Are all hazardous materials dealt with and disposed of properly? x
Are the employees aware of the safe operating procedures? x
Is the environment suitable for work (lighting, air quality, temperature)? x
SUSTAIN Stick to the rules
Is the 6S audit updated, visible to all, and shared with top x 12
management? Table II.
Are time and resources are sufficiently allocated to the 6S activities? x Checklist for 6S
Is the 6S score continuously reviewed and discussed? x implementation with
Score ¼ 78 score evaluation

5.2.3 Maintenance action plans. The glass line is comprised of several stages and machines
that include thousands of components. All components that are failure-prone are routinely
maintained per specific schedules and according to recommendations as available in the
manufacturer manuals. In addition, an FMEA was done on all failures that may occur in
the glass line. Based on this analysis, all those failures that were classified as critical to the
operation of the glass line were given special attention in terms of maintenance frequency,
availability of required operator skills, spare parts inventory, and so on. Accordingly, two
types of maintenance action plans were enforced at KSCC for the glass line: corrective
maintenance and preventive maintenance. A list of the main corrective and preventive
maintenance actions along with the assigned operator/technician was provided in Table III.
This list in Table III is not an exhaustive one, but merely a concise representation of the
basic actions that were conducted at the various machines of the glass line. Additionally,
steps 8–10 presented later in the case study will explain what an appropriate action should
be taken so as to minimize each failure that may arise in production based on the FMEA.
5.2.4 Quality improvement action plans. At the beginning of TPM implementation, the
glass line was running at a defect rate of 1,800 ppm (parts per million), which corresponds to
a σ level of 3.12. This met the target approved by top management at KSCC of σ level equals
to at least 3. However, to ensure that this level never slips away, efforts were continued to
improve performance by applying statistical process control (SPC) tools. The most
important of these tools was control charts. Thus, an np attribute chart was employed to
 JQME Machine Maintenance action Frequency Mechanic

Depalletizer 1. Realign centered off push trolley Defective M. or A.

2. Readjustment of the pallet guides (off centered) Defective M. or A.
3. General cleaning and lubrication (AM) Weekly M. or A.
Filler machine and 1. Replace the defective transfer plates of all star wheels Defective M. or A.
crowner 2. DRIVE – repair the defective in-feed screw drives Defective P.
3. DRIVE- check and refill oil of all cavex gears (AM) Monthly A.
Rinser machine 1. GRIPPERS – check and replace defective bushings Weekly P. or A.
2. Repairing of the main rotary union Annually M. or A.
3. LUBRICATION – general lubrication (AM) Weekly M. or A.
Carbo cooler 1. Replace the defective flow mix bottom seals/ gaskets Defective M. or A.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 05:54 13 January 2019 (PT)

2. Repairing of all pumps – water and syrup Defective M. or A.

3. Annual cleaning of the main tank (AM) Annually M. or A.
SMI machine 1. FILM WRAPPER – check and replace belts Defective M. or A.
2. Check and reinstall the missing former chain levers and Defective M. or A.
its link
Empty bottle conv. 1. Lubricate all drive earings from depalletizer to filler Monthly M. or A.
Full bottle conveyor 1. Check and replace defective bearings Defective M. or A.
2. Check and replace defective bearings from filler-SMI Defective M. or A.
3. Check and replace defective TTC conveyor from filler-SMI Defective M. or A.
Pack conveyor 1. Reinstall missing guide rollers Defective M. or A.
Table III. 2. Check and replace drive/idler assembly of the roller conv. Defective M. or A.
Corrective and 3. Check and replace drive belts of all drives Defective M. or A.
preventive 4. Modify SMI discharge conveyor to stop with palletizer Defective J. or N.
maintenance action stoppage
plan for various Palletizer 1. Re-straighten of the 2 pneumatic cylinder stopper Weekly M. or A.
machines in the glass 2. Check and repair all pack guides Defective M. or A.
production line 3. General lubrication of the machine (AM) Weekly M. or A.
including Printer 1. Replace make up float Defective J. or A.

monitor the number of defective bottles. As production was running at three shifts per day,
five days a week; the decision was to collect samples at one sample per shift. Samples were
collected consecutively at the beginning of each shift. Due to the high production rate, a
constant size of 5,000 bottles per sample was used and inspected automatically. The sample
size (n) was estimated by using the following equation:
9ð1pÞ
n¼ ; (7)
p
where p is the proportion defective bottles. This equation is based on the sample size
determination method used to ensure that the lower control limit (LCL) for the np chart
never goes below zero. Given p equals 0.0018, the above equation yields 4,991, which can be
rounded up to 5,000. To construct the np chart, the LCL, center line (CL) and upper control
limit (UCL) can then be calculated according to the equations:
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
LCL ¼ np3 npð1pÞ; (8)

CL ¼ np; (9)
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
U CL ¼ np þ3 npð1pÞ: (10)

A control chart consisting of 30 samples was then generated once every two weeks. Data for
the first two weeks of August 2015 were used to generate an np control chart, as shown in
 Figure 2. It can be seen from this figure that no points goes out of control. Therefore, Production
processes in the glass line can be considered in-control and no need to take action unless effectiveness
things will change.

5.3 Checking
5.3.1 Failure mode and effect analysis. One important aspect of successful maintenance
programs is the focused attention given to those events which have the most significant
effect on the operation of the production line. This can be addressed through the so-called
FMEA. In FMEA, the goal is to identify all events that lead to longer downtimes and
significantly affect production. To achieve that, a simple Excel program was used by the
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 05:54 13 January 2019 (PT)

maintenance department to record daily downtimes due to maintenance for the various
machines in the Glass line. Other types of downtimes, such as setup, change-over and
cleaning, were also recorded using similar Excel sheets. After collecting data of downtimes
over the period of April–August 2015, it was found that machines’ breakdowns have the
longest downtime, thus having the most effect on the production. The second longest
downtime was due to setup. These two causes combined corresponded to 73.8 percent of the
total downtime. Thus, it was agreed by the TPM team that setup downtime can be reduced
by improving personal skills. On the other hand, machines’ breakdowns had to be
investigated further. By studying downtimes per each machine used in the glass production
line, data gathered were displayed in a Pareto chart, as shown in Figure 3. It can be seen
from this figure that the depalletizer has the longest downtime, followed by pack conveyor,
then the rinser. The three of them constitute around 64 percent of downtime caused by
machines’ breakdowns.
5.3.2 Cause and effect analysis. CEA is very important for identifying the root causes of
the problem to help develop an action plan and make corrective changes in the system.
As an example, let consider the downtime caused by failures in the rinser machine. After
investigating what may cause machine stoppage, it was found that a broken gripper, improper
timing, broken rinser head, broken cylinders and/or broken bottle handler are all possible
causes. The total downtime associated with each cause was then collected to construct a
Pareto chart, as shown in Figure 4. It can be seen from this figure that a broken gripper has the
most significant effect among the causes of stoppage in the rinser machine. To determine the
root cause of the problem, engineers and technicians working in the maintenance department

20

UCL = 18
Number of Defective Bottles

15

10

0 LCL= 0 Figure 2.
The np chart plotted
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 for the 30 samples
Sample No.
 JQME 700

600

500

Downtime (min)
400

300

200

100
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 05:54 13 January 2019 (PT)

0
r r r r r r I r r r r
ze eyo inse Fille tize rinte
SM Line appe veyo veyo
eti v e
p all Con R
Pall P
l ide C Con Con
De ack G pty Ful
l
Figure 3. P Em
Pareto chart for types Downtime (min) 695 395 395 255 195 185 175 20 0 0 0
of machine downtimes Percent 30.0 17.1 17.1 11.0 8.4 8.0 7.6 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cum % 30.0 47.1 64.1 75.2 83.6 91.6 99.1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

established a fishbone diagram to highlight all the potential causes of broken grippers, as
shown in Figure 5. This figure shows that grippers were broken because of using used and old
grippers, and using the same gripper for different types of bottles.

5.4 Corrective action

An OCAP was taken to eliminate problems in production. For instance, in the previous case
related to the rinser machine’s stoppage, a corrective action plan was needed to deal with the
causes of the problem, i.e. using used and old grippers, and using the same gripper for
different types of bottles. As this was happening because the grippers were sometimes out
of stock, the team decided to establish a reorder point for all failure-prone components, such
as the gripper and the rinser head, to prevent these components from going out of stock.
Thus, a policy was enforced where at any time, the number of spare parts for each of these
components reduces to one unit in inventory, a new order is placed for that component.

350

300

250
Downtime (min)

200

150

100

50

0
er ing ad rs ler
ipp im He de nd
Gr erT ser Cylin Ha
en rop Rin en ott
le
B rok p en rok B
Figure 4. Im ok B en
Br ok
Pareto chart for types Br
of downtimes for the Downtime (min) 320 30 20 15 10
rinser machine Percent 81.0 7.6 5.1 3.8 2.5
Cum % 81.0 88.6 93.7 97.5 100.0
 Using used grippers Using old grippers Production
effectiveness
Gripper out of stock

Gripper out of stock

Broken Gripper

Figure 5.
Gripper out of stock
CEA for broken
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 05:54 13 January 2019 (PT)

grippers in the
Using the same gripper for different types rinser machine

5.5 Verification
To verify the impact of TPM implementation and corrective actions on maintenance
performance, the OEE and its components (quality, availability and efficiency) were
measured for the month of December 2015. The results for both March and December are
summarized in Table IV.
Comparing the OEE measurements for March and December, it can be noticed that
among the three OEE components, line efficiency had increased the most, followed by
availability, then quality. Although the change in quality seems very small (changed from
99.82 to 99.87 percent), which has little impact on OEE, but it has a big effect on the
percentage of parts defective. The new line quality of 99.87 percent corresponds to 1,300
ppm defective (27.8 percent reduction from the old value of 1,800 ppm), which translates to a
quality level of 3.215 (compared to the old level of 3.12). As OEE was calculated before TPM
implementation giving a value of 35.27 percent, the OEE after TPM implementation had
increased to a value of 57.42 percent. This corresponds to a relative increase in OEE of
around 62.6 percent, which exceeds the target set by KSCC of achieving a relative
improvement of 50 percent in OEE by the end of year.

5.6 Control
Sustaining effective maintenance practices that lead to improvements in productivity
and product quality is always a challenge. This is because the work environment
at the organization, and more specifically at the maintenance department, is dynamic in
nature. Factors like shifts, changes in staff (e.g. hiring, layoffs or leaves), new
management, and new equipment and tools all contribute to those dynamics. As a
control plan for the current case study, documentation for the implemented TPM-based
scheme and all of the associated procedures was produced in the form of a report.
Thus, details such as training guidelines, roles and responsibilities, 6S checklist,
maintenance procedures, quality procedures and performance measures were all included
in this report. The plan was to use the report as a reference guide for all future activities

Performance measure March (%) December (%) Table IV.

OEE components
Quality 99.82 99.87 calculated before
Availability 68.60 77.51 and after
Efficiency 51.50 74.18 implementation of the
OEE 35.27 57.42 TPM-based scheme
 JQME related to the TPM program. As the report was made available to top management at
KSCC, such report should be treated as a living document that needs to be updated
whenever a procedure is modified.

6. Summary and conclusion

In summary, this work has presented a sequential TPM-based scheme in order to facilitate
the implementation of the core principles of TPM, and improve effectiveness of production
equipment. To demonstrate how the 13-step scheme can be implemented, it was applied to
the glass production line at United Beverage Company in Kuwait (KSCC). Following a
period of nine months of implementation of the TPM-based scheme, the OEE was
significantly improved. In detail, the following were achieved:
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 05:54 13 January 2019 (PT)

(1) Efficiency of the Glass line was increased by 44 percent (from 55.1 to 74.18 percent).
(2) Line availability was increased by 13 percent (from 68.6 to 77.51 percent).
(3) Output quality was the least to change from 99.82 to 99.87 percent (0.05 percent).
However, this corresponded to a significant 27.8 percent reduction in the percentage
of parts defective from 1,800 to 1,300 ppm.
(4) The OEE increased by 62.6 percent (from 35.27 to 57.42 percent), thus achieving the
50 percent target set by KSCC.
In addition, a positive feedback was given by the staff at the case company toward the
implemented scheme. Given these tangible results, it can be concluded that the scheme looks
promising in enhancing production effectiveness of equipment in a timely manner. Although a
single application is never a sufficient proof of any heuristic scheme, this combined with a
reasonable logic behind the steps proposed in the scheme makes the case for it significantly
more convincing (yet, the more cases of application are tried, the stronger the evidence will be).
For example, integrating between 5S and SHE is very logical since it simplifies procedures
enforced to measure fulfillment of the two initiatives. Treating both “training and education”
and the 6S lean method as pre-requisites to any successful implementation program, rather
than a single one of them as adopted by other researchers, is also logical. As the implementation
of the proposed scheme was successful in achieving KSCC’s goal through improvements in line
efficiency, availability and product quality, the same approach was recommended to be applied
in order to improve the performance of the other production lines at KSCC.

References
Ahuja, I.P.S. and Khamba, J.S. (2008), “Total productive maintenance: literature review and directions”,
International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 25 No. 7, pp. 709-756.
Ahuja, I.P.S. and Kumar, P. (2009), “A case study of total productive maintenance implementation at
precision tube mills”, Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 241-258.
Al-Hassan, K., Chan, J.F.-L. and Metcalfe, A.V. (2000), “The role of total productive maintenance in
business excellence”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 596-601.
Andersson, R., Manfredsson, P. and Lantz, B. (2015), “Total productive maintenance in support
processes: an enabler for operation excellence”, Total Quality Management and Business
Excellence, Vol. 26 No. 9, pp. 1042-1055.
Attri, R., Grover, S., Dev, N. and Kumar, D. (2013), “Analysis of barriers of total productive maintenance
(TPM)”, International Journal of Systems Assurance Engineering and Management, Vol. 4 No. 4,
pp. 365-377.
Bajaj, A., Kumar, V. and Student, P. (2013), “TPM implementation in small scale agriculture industry: a
case study”, International Journal of Engineering Research and Technology, Vol. 2 No. 5,
pp. 1122-1135.
 Bon, A.T.B. and Karim, N. (2011), “Total productive maintenance application to reduce defects of Production
product”, Journal of Applied Sciences Research, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 11-17. effectiveness
Chan, F.T.S., Lau, H.C.W., Ip, R.W.L., Chan, H.K. and Kong, S. (2005), “Implementation of total
productive maintenance: a case study”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 95
No. 1, pp. 71-94.
Eti, M.C., Ogaji, S.O.T. and Probert, S.D. (2006), “Reducing the cost of preventive maintenance (PM)
through adopting a proactive reliability-focused culture”, Applied Energy, Vol. 83 No. 11,
pp. 1235-1248.
Gupta, P. and Vardhan, S. (2016), “Optimizing OEE, productivity and production cost for improving
sales volume in an automobile industry through TPM: a case study”, International Journal of
Production Research, Vol. 54 No. 10, pp. 2976-2988.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 05:54 13 January 2019 (PT)

Gupta, R.C., Sonwalkar, J. and Chitale, A.K. (2001), “Overall equipment effectiveness through total
productive maintenance”, Prestige Journal of Management and Research, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 61-72.
Haddad, T.H. (2012), “The applicability of total productive maintenance for healthcare facilities: an
implementation methodology”, International Journal of Business, Humanities and Technology,
Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 148-155.
Jain, A., Bhatti, R. and Singh, H. (2014), “Total productive maintenance (TPM) implementation
practice”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 293-323.
Jeong, K.Y. and Phillips, D.T. (2001), “Operational efficiency and effectiveness measurement”,
International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 21 No. 11, pp. 1404-1416.
Kareem, J.A.H. and Talib, N.A. (2015), “A review on 5S and total productive maintenance and impact of
their implementation in industrial organizations”, Advanced Science Letters, Vol. 21 No. 5,
pp. 1073-1082.
Kilenstam, J. and Odenrick, P. (2000), “Change and learning processes when implementing total
productive maintenance–a case study in the food processing industry”, Proceedings of the IEA
2000/HFES 2000 Congress, San Diego, CA, p. 393.
Kodali, R. and Chandra, S. (2001), “Analytical hierarchy process for justification of total productive
maintenance”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 12 No. 7, pp. 695-705.
Leflar, J.A. (2001), Practical TPM: Successful Equipment Management at Agilent Technologies,
Productivity Press, Portland, OR.
McKone, K.E., Schroeder, R.G. and Cua, K.O. (2001), “The impact of total productive maintenance
practices on manufacturing performance”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 19 No. 1,
pp. 39-58.
Mishra, R.P., Anand, G. and Kodali, R. (2008), “A SWOT analysis of total productive maintenance
frameworks”, International Journal of Management Practice, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 51-81.
Mwanza, B.G. and Mbohwa, C. (2015), “Design of a total productive maintenance model for effective
implementation: case study of a chemical manufacturing company”, Proceedings of the International
Conference on Industrial Engineering and Service Science 2015, Procedia Manufacturing, Vol. 4,
pp. 461-470.
Naguib, H. (1993), “Roadmap for the implementation of total productive maintenance (TPM) in a
semiconductor manufacturing operations”, Proceedings of the 1993 IEEE/SEMI International
Semiconductor Manufacturing Science Symposium, pp. 89-97.
Nakajima, S. (1988), Introduction to Total Productive Maintenance (TPM), Productivity Press,
Portland, OR.
Ng, K.C., Goh, G.G.G. and Eze, U.C. (2011), “Total productive maintenance in a semiconductor
manufacturing firm: an empirical analysis”, IEEE International Conference on Industrial
Engineering and Engineering Management, pp. 829-833.
Peimbert-García, R., Limon-Robles, J., Beruvides, M. and García-Hernández, D. (2012), “An economic
framework for total productive maintenance (TPM)”, 62nd IIE Annual Conference and Expo,
pp. 2222-2231.
 JQME Pirsig, R.M. (2004), “Total productive maintenance”, in Levvitt, J. (Ed.), Managing Factory Maintenance,
Industrial Press Inc., NY, pp. 178-187.
Rodrigues, M. and Hatakeyama, K. (2006), “Analysis of the fall of TPM in companies”, Journal of
Materials Processing Technology, Vol. 179 No. 1, pp. 276-279.
Sharma, R.K., Kumar, D. and Kumar, P. (2005), “FLM to select suitable maintenance strategy in process
industries using MISO model”, Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 11 No. 4,
pp. 359-374.
Singh, J., Rastogi, V. and Richa, S. (2013), “Total productive maintenance review: a case study in
automobile manufacturing industry”, International Journal of Current Engineering and
Technology, Vol. 3 No. 5, pp. 2010-2016.
Singh, U. and Ahuja, I.S. (2015), “Evaluating the contributions of total productive maintenance on
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 05:54 13 January 2019 (PT)

manufacturing performance”, International Journal of Process Management and Benchmarking,

Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 425-455.
Sivaram, N.M., Karthi, S. and Sreenivasa, C.G. (2014), “Synergising total productive maintenance
elements with ISO 9001:2008 standard based quality management system”, TQM Journal,
Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 534-549.
Steinbacher, H.R. and Steinbacher, N.L. (1993), TPM for America: What It Is and Why You Need It,
Productivity Press, Portland, OR.
Sun, H., Yam, R. and Wai-Keung, N. (2003), “The implementation and evaluation of total productive
maintenance (TPM)? An action case study in a Hong Kong manufacturing company”,
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 224-228.
Swanson, L. (2001), “Linking maintenance strategies to performance”, International Journal of
Production Economics, Vol. 70 No. 3, pp. 237-244.

Corresponding author
Omar Bataineh can be contacted at: omarmdb@just.edu.jo

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com