The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emerald-library.com
JQME
5,3
162
Journal of Quality in Maintenance
Engineering, Vol. 5 No. 3, 1999,
pp. 162-181. # MCB University
Press, 1355-2511
Factors affecting successful
implementation of total
productive maintenance
A UK manufacturing case study
perspective
C.J. Bamber, J.M. Sharp and M.T. Hides
University of Salford, UK
Keywords Total productive maintenance, Manufacturing, Small- to medium-sized enterprises,
Maintenance, Implementation
Abstract Modern manufacturing requires that to be successful organisations must be
supported by both effective and efficient maintenance. One approach to improving the
performance of maintenance activities is to implement and develop a total productive
maintenance (TPM) strategy. However, it is well documented that a number of organisations
are failing to successfully implement such strategies. This paper outlines research carried out by
the Aeronautical, Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering Department at Salford University
aimed at discovering the factors affecting the successful implementation of TPM. This research
has led to the development of a generic model indicating factors affecting the successful
implementation of TPM. The validity of the generic model has been tested in a UK
manufacturing small- to medium-size enterprise (SME) and the case study research findings
further triangulated through a review of documented case study evidence. This research has also
led to the development of recommendations to improve the TPM development and
implementation program of the case study organisation. Further development of the research
has resulted in a step-wise program or generic roadmap for UK SMEs which is proposed as a tool
for the implementation or rejuvenation of an organisation's TPM program.
Introduction
Traditionally, maintenance has been considered as a support function, non-
productive and not a core function adding little value to the business. However,
it has been noticed, particularly over the last 15 years, that UK manufacturing
industries have used many differing approaches to improving maintenance
effectiveness. Accordingly, the Department of Trade and Industry in the UK
recognises that maintenance of assets and machines is an essential part of the
operation's function and an effective maintenance strategy can significantly
contribute through adding value to the production activities. Hence,
maintenance should be seen as a world-class principle for manufacturers (DTI,
1988). Manufacturing organisations striving for world class performance have
shown that the contribution of an effective maintenance strategy can be
significant in providing competitive advantage through its total productive
maintenance (TPM) program (Willmott, 1994). Furthermore, TPM is
considered by many writers to be an indispensable contribution to lean
production (Womack and Jones, 1996) supporting just-in-time (JIT)
manufacture (Ohno, 1988) and total quality management (TQM) (Dale, 1994) Total productive
and has been shown as an essential pillar alongside JIT and TQM to companies maintenance
seeking world class manufacturing status (Schonberger, 1987; Cheng and
Podolsky, 1996). Additionally, Sharp and Kutuoguoglu (1997) have shown an
effective maintenance activity can make a significant contribution to company
profitability through increased production efficiency, plant, availability and
reliability. Therefore, as TPM aims to provide an effective and efficient 163
maintenance strategy in a manufacturing industry this makes it a key value
adding business activity.

Defining TPM
Bamber (1998) presents a comprehensive review of TPM literature from which
he has identified two main approaches to defining TPM, described as the
Japanese approach and the Western approach. A summary of these approaches
is presented below.

The Japanese approach to defining TPM

The Japanese approach to TPM is promoted by the Japan Institute of Plant
Maintenance (JIPM) and in particular advocated by the vice chairman of the
JIPM, Siiechi Nakajima. Many devotees of the Japanese style TPM, such as
Tajiri and Gotoh (1992) and Shirose (1992) regard Nakajima as the father of
TPM and they recognise that a full definition contains the following five points:
(1) It aims at getting the most efficient use of equipment (i.e. overall
efficiency).
(2) It establishes a total (company-wide) PM system encompassing
maintenance prevention, preventive maintenance, and improvement
related maintenance.
(3) It requires the participation of equipment designers, equipment
operators, and maintenance department workers.
(4) It involves every employee from top management down.
(5) It promotes and implements PM based on autonomous, small group
activities.
Notwithstanding that a complete definition of TPM must include the five point
definition, Nakajima (1988) attempts to summarise an entire philosophy in
succinctly defining TPM as: ``Productive maintenance involving total
participation in addition to maximising equipment effectiveness and
establishing a thorough system of PM'', where PM is a comprehensive planned
maintenance system.

The Western approach to defining TPM

In the UK, TPM has been pioneered by Edward Willmott, managing director of
Willmott Consulting Group. He has managed large scale studies of
maintenance practice in the UK and written extensively on TPM for the
JQME Department of Trade and Industry (DTI, 1988). Willmott (1997) acknowledges
5,3 the five point definition that is at the heart of the Japanese approach to TPM
and consequently accepts this as being an accurate and true reflection of the
main principles; however he provides a definition that is more suited to
Western manufacturing and suggests:
TPM seeks to engender a company-wide approach towards achieving a standard of
164 performance in manufacturing, in terms of the overall effectiveness of equipment, machines
and processes, which is truly world class.

Similarly, Edward Hartmann, president of the International TPM Institute Inc.,

who is recognised by Nakajima as the father of TPM in the USA, also provides
a definition that is suggested as being more readily adopted by Western
companies. Hartmann (1992) states:
Total productive maintenance permanently improves the overall effectiveness of equipment
with the active involvement of operators.

Another US advocate of TPM, Wireman (1991) suggests that TPM is

maintenance that involves all employees in the organisation and accordingly
includes everyone from top management to the line employee and indicates:
. . . it encompasses all departments including, maintenance, operations, facilities, design
engineering, project engineering, instruction engineering, inventory and stores, purchasing,
accounting finances, plant /site management.

The American Society of Manufacturing Engineers (ASME) provide a short

definition from the Tool and Manufacturing Engineers Handbook devoted to
continuous improvement techniques from Bakerjan (1994) simply stating:
TPM is a management technique that involves everyone in a plant or facility in equipment or
asset utilisation.

A more detailed definition includes a focus on improvement in a wider context

and Rhyne (1990) considers TPM as:
. . . a partnership between the maintenance and production organisations to improve product
quality, reduce waste, reduce manufacturing cost, increase equipment availability, and
improve the company's overall state of maintenance.

Discussion on the definitions of TPM

In each of the terms presented by Hartmann (1992), Willmott (1997) and
Bakerjan (1994) it is suggested that compared to the other views presented the
fundamental difference within these three definitions is the omission of and the
emphasis away from the word maintenance and the general tendency toward
equipment. In particular, Hartmann and Willmott focus on equipment in terms
of an overall effectiveness perspective and Bakerjan similarly focuses on
equipment from a utilisation perspective.
Interestingly, the Hartmann (1992) definition not only places the emphasis
on ``overall effectiveness of equipment'', but also on the ``active involvement of
operators'' instead of ``every single employee'' or ``all employees'' as with the
definitions presented by the Japanese writers, Naylor (1996), Dale (1994) and
Perry (1993). Hartmann's emphasis on active involvement of operators is not Total productive
seen in the definitions of TPM from Willmott (1997) and Wireman (1991) but maintenance
could be argued as being inferred in the meanings presented by Dale (1994),
Perry (1993), Naylor (1996) and Nakajima (1989) and Shirose (1992).
Within the definitions presented by the Japanese advocates of TPM, that is
Nakajima (1989), Shirose (1992), Tajiri and Gotoh (1992) and of course the JIPM,
there is a clear and specific mention of small group activities and this is 165
mirrored in the description of TPM from operations and quality management
experts Perry (1993), Naylor (1996), and Dale (1994) who refer to either small
group activities or team work. This is in contrast to the definitions presented
by Hartmann (1992), Wireman (1991), Willmott (1997), Bakerjan (1994) and
Rhyne (1990) that each provides statements that do not directly include a
specific focus on teamwork or small group activities.

The common thread defining TPM

There is a ``common thread'' that runs through the many definitions of TPM
which can be illustrated as a company-wide approach to plant, equipment or
asset care that involves the active participation of more than just the
maintenance department working on maintaining and improving the overall
equipment effectiveness. Despite this common thread the literature reviewed
indicates two main approaches to defining TPM which are considered as the
Western definition and the Japanese definition. The focus of approach in
defining the Japanese style TPM is suggested as including an emphasis on the
use of teamwork or small group activities working on a system of productive
maintenance, while the Western style definitions tend toward placing the
emphasis on overall effectiveness of equipment through active participation of
equipment operators, which moves the emphases away from both maintenance
and teamwork and towards equipment management and utilisation with
operator participation.
It could further be suggested that the reason for the many differing
definitions of TPM is the complexity and divergence of TPM programs
adopted throughout industry and it is accepted that to gain a better and more
useful understanding of TPM it is more meaningful to explore TPM from an
operational or elemental and implementation viewpoint.

Operational elements of a TPM program

TPM experts Nakajima (1988), Hartmann (1992), Willmott (1997) and Wireman
(1991) all agree that a common feature of either the Japanese or Western style
approach to TPM is to strive for the three goals of zero defects, zero accidents
and zero breakdowns. Likewise, these experts also agree that the aim of TPM
activities is to improve the productivity, quality costs, cost of products,
delivery and movement of products, safety of operations and morale of those
involved (PQCDSM). Therefore, the key operational needs of any approach
could be considered essentially the same, the difference being the focus of
JQME approach. Furthermore, with the exception of the publication from Wireman
5,3 (1991), these experts consider operational elements of any TPM program
should aim to provide the five pillars of TPM development which are shown by
Yeomans and Millington (1997) in Figure 1 and summarised by Nakajima
(1989) as:
166 (1) Implement improvement activities designed to increase equipment
efficiency. This is accomplished mainly by eliminating the ``six big
losses'' (for more detail see Bamber, 1998).
(2) Establish a system of autonomous maintenance to be performed by
equipment operators. This is set up after they are trained to be
``equipment conscious'' and ``equipment skilled.''
(3) Establish a planned maintenance system. This increases the efficiency
of the maintenance department.
(4) Establish training courses. These help equipment operators raise their
skill levels.
(5) Establish a system of maintenance prevention (MP) design and early
equipment management. MP design generates equipment that requires
less maintenance, while early equipment management gets new
equipment operating normally in less time.
Although writers on TPM tend to agree the five pillars are fundamental to
TPM success the implementation strategies may vary and emphasis or
concentration on each pillar is often presented with differing approaches. For
instance, Yeomans and Millington (1997) suggest that in practice concentration
on implementation of TPM tends to focus on the single autonomous
maintenance pillar; while, Nakajima (1988, 1989) or Shirose (1994) presents no
such focus on any single pillar. The following sections review TPM
implementation in UK industry.
management
effectiveness

maintenance

maintenance
Autonomous
equipment

equipment

preventive
Increase

Planned
Training

Early

Figure 1.
The five pillars of TPM
Source: Yeomans and Millington (1997)
Case study reviews of factors affecting successful implementation Total productive
of TPM maintenance
Implementing TPM in the UK automotive industry
The automotive industries are leaders in the UK for adoption of techniques
such as world class manufacturing (WCM), TQM, lean production and SPC
initiatives. In particular, the Rover Group have been at the forefront of
development and implementation of new manufacturing strategies and have 167
shown that TQM requires both effective and efficient maintenance to be
successful (Wilmott, 1997a).
The Land Rover transmissions manufacturing plant in Birmingham, UK
attempted twice during the period of 1991-1993 to implement TPM practices.
However, both attempts were finally abandoned and the main reasons outlined
for TPM implementation failure during the early implementation attempts
include:
. simultaneous introduction of TPM on too many machines;
. lack of involvement of production associates (operators);
. introduction of TPM to machines that were not really important to the
product process.
Despite the earlier failures, the Rover Group strategic plans detailed
implementation of TPM as an essential component of its strategy for
manufacturing divisions. According to Bohoris et al. (1995) successful
implementation of TPM within Rover came about with the change of the
management manufacturing structure and a new emphasis on:
. production driving the TPM implementation, with maintenance
assisting in the process (and involvement from the initial (planning)
stages of the production associates and union of H & S representatives);
. the full utilisation of the in-house developed computerised maintenance
management system (CMMS);
. the gradual and proper implementation of TPM on a handful of
machines at a given time.
Similarly, at the Rover Body & Pressings plant in Swindon, two shortcomings
of its maintenance performance stood out; a misalignment between
maintenance objectives and manufacturing; and poor productivity and
maintenance effectiveness. The emphasis was changed and consequently
directed at continuous learning and development. The TPM program is now
driven within the quality strategy (Holder, 1996).
At the Rover Body & Pressings plant two pilot areas were chosen to initiate
the TPM implementation effort. Success in both pilot studies led the company
to roll out TPM to the workforce using a one-day awareness course developed
by the maintenance staff. Although, initially, manufacturing managers were
reluctant to take ownership of maintenance, this was overcome through
continual reinforcement of TPM commitment by senior management (Holder,
JQME 1996). Continuous training and development at all levels reinforced the TPM
5,3 message and facilitated the successful implementation of the TPM program.
Accordingly, Willmott (1997a) suggests that through successful TPM
introduction effective maintenance management is cascaded across tradesmen,
production planners, team engineers and team leaders.

168 Implementing TPM at GKN Westland Industrial Products, UK

Holder (1997) suggests that introducing TPM is not easy. But like any major
project, commitment, planning and direction go a long way in achieving
success. At GKN Westland Industrial Products (GKN) based at Weston-Super-
Mare the idea for introducing TPM came from a senior shop steward who had
attended a union seminar outlining TPM and team work. The management
team supported the shop steward and set-up a steering committee to plan and
direct the introduction and continuance of TPM.
The first step at GKN was to train a production supervisor as a facilitator
and then to develop a TPM awareness pack which was distributed to the 199
strong workforce at a series of two to three hour introductory sessions. The aim
was to highlight the benefits of TPM and why it was needed.
Actual implementation of the practice of TPM came about with a team of
volunteers that emerged with a self selected leader which looked at a pilot
project in a machine shop. The team targeted the pilot area and soon realised
improvements through identifying and rectifying faults to improve overall
equipment effectiveness. The team used the red tagging method and cleaning
exercises to start the TPM processes in further critical areas and machine
centres. The cleaning regime has helped to change the operators' attitudes and
revealed hidden defects that usually go unnoticed. The practice of cleaning,
identifying faults and improvement has led to the operators talking proudly
about TPM and recognising the impact they can make on manufacturing
improvement and contribution to the program.
Momentum of the program at GKN is seen as a major concern and this is
maintained through senior management commitment and communication with
a newsletter, TPM bulletin boards and before and after photos of improvement
being used to motivate and increase morale (Holder, 1997). Accordingly, it has
been recognised by specialists in the implementation of business performance
improvement concepts that:
In all organisations where success is known to have been achieved, considerable efforts have
been made to give recognition to successful teams and enable them to display their work
(Hutchins, 1998).

The obstacles to introducing TPM

The number of companies successfully implementing a TPM program is
considered relatively small and failure has been attributed to the following
three major obstacles (Bakerjan, 1994):
(1) Lack of management support and understanding.
 (2) Lack of sufficient training. Total productive
(3) Failure to allow sufficient time for the evolution. maintenance
The lack of management support is attributed to management not completely
understanding the true goal of the TPM program. For example if management
consider that TPM is a means to reduce maintenance staff, they have failed to
understand the true goal and purpose of the program. The real goal is to 169
increase the equipment's effectiveness, not reduce the labour head-count. Lack
of training will inevitably lead to a decrease in overall equipment effectiveness
and result in failure to adopt new and improved methods. To make TPM
become a successful part of factory life will take considerable effort to change
mindsets from a traditional maintenance approach. Roy Davis a UK director of
Manufacturing Productivity Improvements Ltd. considers a good awareness,
education and training strategic plan to be an essential factor in the success of
implementation (Davis, 1997).
The time required to change from a reactive program to a proactive
approach will be considerable by some estimates it may be a three to five year
venture before achieving a competitive venture for the TPM program. TPM
must be seen as a long-term commitment to strive for zero losses and not a way
of obtaining short-term fixes (McCarthy 1997). Windle (1993), an active
management consultant implementing improvement programs, considers that
limited applications of TPM from companies, which have taken the short-term
perspective, have led to regressive steps, including:
. converting skilled maintenance personnel into routine operators;
. shifting line authority for maintenance crews to production managers;
. pushing TPM as a means to reduce the apparent overhead of the
maintenance department;
. applying TPM principally to reduce maintenance costs.
Similarly, Davis (1997) outlines ten main reasons for TPM failure within UK
manufacturing organisations as:
(1) The program is not serious about change.
(2) Inexperienced consultants/trainers are used.
(3) The program is too high level, run by managers for managers.
(4) There is a lack of structure and relationship to strategic needs.
(5) The program does not implement change on the shop floor and is not
managed.
(6) A lack of education and training for those expected to take it on board
and provide support.
(7) Programs are initiated and run exclusively by engineering and seen by
production as a project that does not involve them.
JQME (8) Attempts to apply TPM in the same way it is implemented in Japan,
5,3 using the standard approach found in Japanese publications.
(9) TPM teams lack the necessary mix of skills and experience.
(10) Poor structure to support the TPM teams and their activities.

170 Critical success factor in implementing TPM

The previous three sections have discussed the difficulties and obstacles facing
UK companies when adopting a TPM approach. This is not to say that UK
manufacturing has not adopted TPM successfully. Quite the opposite; the
Rover and GKN examples show that with a structured and evolutionary
approach TPM implementation can succeed. TPM demands commitment,
structure and direction. It also takes a great deal of time, effort and resource to
establish and sustain as with many other change management philosophies
(see Clarke, 1994; Revenaugh, 1994; Dunn, 1995). Furthermore, according to the
senior consultant of Manufacturing Productivity Improvements Limited, Davis
(1997), experience of TPM implementation in the UK has shown that the key
factors for successful implementations are to:
. approach TPM realistically, developing a practical plan and employing
program and project management principles;
. accept that TPM will take a long time to spread across the company and
change existing maintenance culture;
. be determined to keep going;
. put in place, train and develop a network of TPM co-ordinators that will
promote and support TPM activities every day;
. support TPM co-ordinators with time and resources, plus senior level
back up;
. put in place relevant measures of performance and continually monitor
and publicise benefits achieved in financial terms;
Davis (1997) provides a vital addition to the understanding of implementation
issues related to the TPM program with his last point mentioned above. It is
considered extremely important to measure performance as it gives managers
the possibility to base their decisions on facts, not opinions (Maskell, 1994).
Quality improvement experts Deming (1986), Tenner and DeToro (1992) and
Spenley (1992) all emphasise this need for appropriate measures of
performance, to provide management focus and fact based decision making for
the implementation of change to be successful.

A generic model of factors affecting successful implementation of TPM

Many factors have been drawn from a review of case study literature on
manufacturing organisations' efforts to implement TPM, namely; GKN
Westland Industrial Products, Land Rover Transmissions and Rover body and
pressings as discussed earlier in this paper. This has led to identification of
certain factors that are likely to be present in successful implementation of Total productive
TPM in UK industry. Moreover, the factors have been derived not only from maintenance
case study literature but also from the experiences documented by TPM
experts and consultants proficient in TPM implementation in the UK, namely;
Manufacturing Productivity Improvements Limited, Davis (1997);
management consultant Windle (1993); and TPM consultant Willmot (1997a).
Furthermore, a review of literature on manufacturing and management change 171
strategies has contributed to the development of factors and grouping of these
factors into nine categories. (For example the critiques on implementation of
just-in-time by Jewitt (1991) and Suzuki (1992); literature from TQM, Bendell
(1990) and Dunn (1995); and reviews of Business Process Re-Engineering by
Hammer and Champy (1993) and Davenport (1993) have been used). Bamber
(1998) provides a more detailed review of the literature survey used to develop
the categories. This review of literature and case studies has led to the
development of a conceptual framework, which is summarised in Figure 2 and
the nine categories developed from the theory in the manner described above
are considered as:
(1) the existing organisation;
(2) measures of performance;
(3) alignment to company mission;
(4) the involvement of people;
(5) an implementation plan;
(6) knowledge and beliefs;
(7) time allocation for implementation;
Measures of The involvement
performance of people
An
Alignment to implementation
mission plan

Successful
Implementation
of TPM

Knowledge Mangement The existing Figure 2.

and beliefs commitment organisation Cause and effect
diagram ± a generic
Time The model of factors
allocation for motivation of affecting successful
implementation management and implementation of TPM
workforce
JQME (8) management commitment;
5,3 (9) motivation of management and workforce.
A more comprehensive model is presented by Bamber (1998) showing sub-
factors related to each of the nine categories and describes their
interrelationships and dependencies.
172
A case study assessment of the generic model
The model (Figure 2) combined with the five pillars of TPM (Figure 1) were
used to develop a tool for the assessment of an organisation's TPM
implementation program. Thorsman and Co. (UK) Limited (TCE) were used as
a case study organisation in order to validate the model using the assessment
tool.

The findings from the case study assessment

The case study organisation (TCE) have been attempting implementation of
TPM for over two years, and so far, the efforts can only be considered to have
partially developed a TPM program. TCE have not yet implemented the full
requirements of the five pillars of TPM as described by Willmott (1997),
Nakajima (1989) or Yeomans and Millington (1997). From the literature of
Davis (1997), Bakerjan (1994) and Holder (1996) it has been shown in the
conceptual model that there is a need to allow sufficient time for the successful
implementation of TPM, otherwise failure is expected. In fact, Bakerjan (1994)
suggests a planned time frame of over three years should be considered, while
others such as McCarthy (1997) and Windle (1993) express the regressive and
detrimental effects of short term perspectives, which inevitably lead to failure
of implementation of TPM.
In particular with reference to the five pillars, most activity within the TCE
TPM program is in the planned or preventive maintenance pillar and there is
greatest emphasis on operator-planned maintenance and housekeeping
routines rather than higher level maintenance by skilled personnel.
Consequently, less emphasis has been given to the development of the four
remaining pillars of training, autonomous maintenance, early equipment
management, and to increasing overall equipment effectiveness.
Notwithstanding this situation, many other TPM implementation efforts, such
as the Rover Group experience (Holder, 1996) described in this paper have
taken several years of changing strategies before developing significant benefit
from TPM. Similarly, the Land Rover case study has shown that an incomplete
or failing TPM program can be turned around into a successful production
strategy.
Similar to the TCE current situation mentioned above, Davis (1997)
discusses that many organisations' maintenance and engineering functions
drive the implementation of TPM and thus efforts are ineffectively used to
impose planned maintenance routines on a reluctant and hence resisting
production department. Consequently, less resource is devoted to all the
remaining requirements of a complete TPM program. In this respect, Davis Total productive
(1997), Parker (1995) and Hutchins (1998) suggest that TPM implementation maintenance
should be driven by production and supported by the engineering functions,
thus reducing resistance and implementation efforts, rather than requirements
being imposed and rejected, this view then advocates efforts should be planned
and co-ordinated by production.
The Land Rover case review discussed by Bohoris et al. (1995) and critiqued 173
in earlier sections has shown that an incomplete or unsuccessful TPM program
can be turned around and highlights ``lack of involvement of production
associates'' as a main reason for TPM implementation failure in the early
implementation attempts. Likewise, the TCE program, although incomplete in
that time and resource has not yet been allowed to develop the TCE system
completely could arguably be turned around through review of the
implementation so far and renewal of the strategy of production driven
implementation efforts. Similarly, the successful case studies discussed in this
paper only became successful as a result of learning from earlier attempts at
implementation and involving production associates more.
The conceptual model (Figure 2) shows that an implementation plan for
TPM is a necessary success factor; furthermore, the plan should be realistic and
practical. The model indicates that with such a plan, measures of performance
or milestones should be included and project management principles adopted.
Accordingly, monitoring of the implementation effort, whether it be milestone
project achievements as advocated by Davis (1997) or other appropriate
measures of performance that provide a source of data for management
decision making as described by Tenner and DeToro (1992) also is an essential
factor within the conceptual model. Although, TCE have developed a written
TPM policy, strategic measures of TPM had not been created and documented.
Therefore, a strategy for implementation of TPM does not exist; hence
milestones or sub-goals on route to full implementation are not explicit and
hence cannot be communicated. The fact that TCE do not have a
comprehensive or detailed implementation plan with associated goals or
objectives indicates that there is no clear direction or focus for TPM
development. Without an implementation plan the expectation indicated by the
conceptual model is for TPM implementation to be unsuccessful. In support of
this view a recent edition of the Quality World publication from the Institute of
Quality Assurance (1998) discusses the teachings of Joseph Juran: ``Failing to
plan, is planning to fail''. Consequently, if TCE do not re-assess the
implementation strategy and formulate a practical planned approach to
developing the TPM program, failure is likely to occur. The TPM
implementation plans available at TCE are limited to creating a planned
maintenance requirement which include operator and skilled maintenance
scheduled activities per machine centre, therefore this type of plan fails to
address all five TPM pillars.
The fundamental measure of TPM performance is the overall equipment
effectiveness (OEE) value which as described by Nakajima (1989) should be the
JQME driving force and provides direction for improvement based activities with
5,3 manufacturing organisations. Many activities and changes at TCE resulted in
an improvement in OEE. However, at TCE it is true to say that the adopted
improvement methods are not focused specifically on OEE, as OEE values are
not available. However, production operatives gather much information on
certain machines which could be used to identify the six big losses as described
174 by Shirose (1994) as a specific activity to address the OEE. Shirose (1994) also
proposes that the information gathered be analysed and root causes of
problems or inefficiencies attacked. Because the six big losses are not
addressed at TCE in this manner improvement is neither systematic nor
focused.
Additionally, Willmott (1997) and Nakajima (1989) have also discussed
improvements in overall equipment effectiveness as an essential element of the
early equipment management pillar of TPM. The review of TCE indicated that
the company had not developed a continuous improvement program for new
machinery. Willmott (1997) describes early equipment maintenance and
management as a major part of the fifth pillar. Consequently, at TCE, new
equipment is not optimised from a life cycle cost minimisation perspective or
from a maintenance prevention view. Early equipment management is
described as those activities aimed at preventing breakdowns and defects of
machinery, thus an organisation with a strong fifth pillar will develop a culture
of prevention rather than fostering a reactive culture. Therefore, as TCE have
not fully developed this activity much can be done to foster a culture of
prevention through development of its TPM program. Not only is a culture of
prevention and overcoming traditional mindsets seen as sub-factors of the
existing organisation in the conceptual model, overcoming traditional mindsets
is seen as a sub-factor of ``knowledge and belief'' (Bamber, 1998).
The fourth pillar of training and education is aimed at improving the
understanding and awareness of the participants of the TPM program to
enable them to develop world class practice. Therefore, training and education
is seen as an enabler of successful TPM. Likewise, to increase understanding of
the benefits of practising TPM the knowledge and beliefs of participants in the
program must be considered an important factor as illustrated in the
conceptual model (Figure 2). In the early days of implementing TPM at TCE, as
described in Bamber (1998) communication was a key element in the training
and education of the participants. For instance, presentations to senior
management were given and team briefings were held to discuss the
requirements of operator maintenance. Similarly, the steering group meetings
showed management commitment and provided a means to understanding the
difficulties of implementation and development of the TPM program.
The findings of the case study analysis indicates that the steering group
meetings ceased to continue after December 1996. However, Holder (1997)
advocates that a steering committee be set up to provide and encourage
commitment, planning and direction to the introduction and continuance of
TPM. Accordingly, continuous management commitment from a steering
group to the TPM program provides the constancy of purpose required for Total productive
success (Jones, 1997). A determination to succeed must be present and this maintenance
comes about as a result of the clear belief that TPM is needed to facilitate
change and improvement in turn this belief can only be fostered through
awareness, training and practice.
The use of the assessment tool has identified the current situation of TPM
implementation at TCE and furthermore, identifies the need to revitalise or 175
rejuvenate the TPM program. The TPM case study assessment method used in
this research not only identifies the current situation of TPM implementation
but also provides the necessary information for the company to address their
shortfalls. This has provided the opportunity to develop a revitalisation
program for TCE which is summarised in the recommendations below. Further
development of the research has led to the development of a step-wise program
or generic roadmap for the improvement or implementation of TPM programs
in UK small to medium size enterprises, and this is also presented below.

Recommendations for further work at TCE: the case study organisation

One of the main objectives of this research was to provide proposals to the case
study organisation (TCE) on how to further develop the implementation of its
TPM program. Based on the research findings and discussions of Bamber
(1998) the following proposals have been offered to TCE and are expected to
provide a renewed emphasis and vitality to the TPM program if adopted.
(1) Re-establish a top management steering group to provide the necessary
planning, commitment and direction to the TPM program by:
. using the force field analysis technique within the group to assess
the restraining and driving forces of a TCE TPM development
program (to use as a learning and awareness tool ± for examples see
Bamber, 1998);
. involving production associates in the development of the
implementation plan, which should consider all the requirements of
the five pillars of TPM;
. create and establish clear measures of performance including
achievable milestones and objectives using project management
techniques.
(2) Obtain director and group level commitment to the program and realise
the necessary resource support by:
. communicating the successes of the program so far;
. developing an assessment of the opportunities that TPM will bring
to the company; both financially and in terms of none financial
improvements;
. provide an explanation of the goals of TPM and the reasons why
overall equipment effectiveness is a world class measure.
JQME (3) Communicate, communicate, and communicate by:
5,3 . awareness campaigns at all levels and in all functions;
. continued integration of the establishing TPM system with
management procedures such as:
± Health and Safety and SQO (see Bamber, 1998);
176 ± Quality management;
± Environmental management arrangements;
± Production engineering projects.
. training and development programs for operators, setters and shop
floor supervisors based on the seven-step autonomous maintenance
program;
. encourage small group activities, which include production
associates as the core team with facilitation and support from
engineering staff aiming at elimination of the six big losses;
. create a visual factory environment through a shop floor 5S
program.

Recommendations to other UK small to medium size enterprises (SMEs)

A main objective of this research was to develop a critical understanding of
factors affecting successful implementation of Total Productive Maintenance
in a UK small to medium size enterprise (SME). This has been achieved
through critical analysis of the case study organisation and in part through the
reviews of other UK case study TPM implementation experiences. Additionally
it is an aim that the research findings could be of benefit to organisations
that are embarking or have started a TPM program but are experiencing
difficulties with implementation, or their efforts are not providing the success
expected of the program. Consequently, the following six-step approach (shown
in Figure 3 and a step by step summary presented) is recommendation drawn
from the research and is considered as offering help to companies that require a
renewed emphasis or vitality to an already implemented but floundering TPM
program:
Step 1: Create a steering organisation. A steering organisation or committee if
not already in place should be created with the authority and
responsibility to develop the TPM program.
Step 2: Understand the current situation. The steering organisation should
carry out a situational analysis of the current level of TPM
development; this can be done through established review techniques
or using audit methodology. However, the recommendation from this
research is to examine the organisation in respect to the nine categories
expressed as factors affecting successful implementation of TPM
developed from the theory which are:
 Review the Implementation of the
Total productive
Plan and Amend Activities or
Milestones as Necessary
6 maintenance
Implementation of the TPM Plan
(project plan and encourage 5
production driven focus)

With Production Associates: Develop an 177

Implementation Plan Including 4
Milestones and Measures of Performance

Understand the Restraining Forces & the

Driving Forces (assess the barriers and the 3
enablers to change within the organisation)

Understand the Current Situation (analyse the

organisation using the nine factors affecting 2
successful implementation of TPM) Figure 3.
Summary of the step-
Create a Steering Organisation (with the authority 1 wise program for
and responsibility for TPM implementation) implementing TPM

(1) The existing organisation.

(2) Measures of performance.
(3) Alignment to company mission.
(4) The involvement of people.
(5) An implementation plan.
(6) Knowledge and beliefs.
(7) Time allocation for implementation.
(8) Management commitment.
(9) Motivation of management and workforce.
Step 3: Understand the restraining forces and the driving forces. An
understanding of the restraining and driving forces is necessary before
developing an improvement plan aimed at successful implementation
of TPM. The recommendation is to adopt the force field analysis
method by the steering organisation and use each of the nine
categories on separate analysis sheets. This is aimed at developing a
critical understanding of the driving forces and restraining forces in
implementing TPM in the particular organisational setting.
Step 4: With production associates: develop an implementation plan including
milestones and measures of performance. Production driven programs
have been shown as being the most successful approach in
implementing TPM. Therefore, it is advocated that production
associates are involved in the development of the program to
encourage production ownership in the early stages of TPM
JQME development, hence increasing the chances of successful
5,3 implementation. Also at this stage the full requirements of the five
pillars of TPM must be considered, because successful TPM can only
be achieved through consideration of each pillar due to their
dependence and interrelated requirements. Additionally, at this stage
measures of performance and milestone objectives should be included
178 in the plan to provide criteria for assessment, review and direction of
the program.
Step 5: Implementation of the TPM Plan. Project management techniques
should be employed to give the implementation of the plan the best
opportunity to succeed. Accordingly, project management principles
are advocated by Davis (1997) and shown as a success factor in
implementing TPM within the UK case study organisations reviewed.
Additionally, this research has shown that implementation should be
production driven and supported by the engineering functions.
Step 6: Review the implementation of the plan and amend activities or
milestones as necessary. Motivation of management and workforce is
shown in the conceptual model as a key success factor in the
implementation of TPM. Hence, a review of the achievements of the
TPM program must result in the communication and reward of the
achievements aimed at reinforcement of successful behaviour and
practice. Reward and recognition should be used to encourage and
motivate in the required direction. Furthermore, this reinforces
management commitment to the TPM program. Conversely, if failure
to achieve the required results is seen at the review stage, analysis of
why the expectations have not been met must be carried out and
consequently amendments to the activities must be promptly made so
inappropriate practice or direction is not continued. At this stage the
determination of top management and the steering organisation to
make TPM succeed must be well communicated to all personnel
involved in TPM development. Continuous management commitment
is necessary for continued improvement and development of TPM.

Discussion on the implications of the findings

The conceptual model shown in Figure 2 has been derived from both TPM
theory and from a review of literature relating to management strategies used
in implementing change in manufacturing organisations. Therefore, the model
created, although complex in appearance, shows considerable robustness when
under scrutiny from a change management perspective. Hence, the findings
validate the model in many instances; however, the case study research has
indicated complex interactions between certain parts of the model which are
not shown in Figure 2. Therefore, the main criticism of the model is that the
interrelationship of sub-factors is not depicted and the inter-dependencies and
influence of various sub-factors on the nine critical factors is not being shown Total productive
in the model. maintenance
In addition, the general validity of the model is considered as significant,
because not only was it derived from TPM theory and change management
theory, it also takes into consideration the experience of other attempts at
implementing TPM. This inclusion of others' experience also provides a certain
generalisability for the model, particularly for small to medium sized 179
enterprises but also for manufacturing organisations that are part of a larger
group or corporation such as those discussed in this paper.

Conclusions
Traditional UK manufacturing organisations are likely to struggle when
attempting to implement a TPM strategy. There are many obstacles or barriers
affecting the successful implementation of TPM within UK organisations
which have been represented within the nine categories shown in Figure 2.
Nevertheless, it has also been shown that successful implementation of TPM
can be achieved. Furthermore, a failing or partially implemented TPM program
can be rejuvenated albeit needing a considerable amount of attention and
management commitment. Following on from the research aimed at identifying
factors affecting successful implementation of TPM, this paper has proposed a
step-wise program which can be used as a generic roadmap for UK SMEs
which are committed to implementing or rejuvenating their TPM strategy.
References
Bakerjan, R. (1994), Tool and Manufacturing Engineers Handbook, Vol. 7, Continuous
Improvement, 4th ed., An ASME Publication, USA, Chapter 15.
Bamber, C. (1998), ``Factors affecting successful implementation of total productive
maintenance'', MSc Research Dissertation, University of Salford.
Bendell, T. (1990), The Quality Gurus: What Can They Do For Your Company?, DTI Publication,
Managing into the '90s Series, London.
Bohoris, G.A., Vamvalis, C., Tracey, W. and Ignatiadou, K. (1995), ``TPM implementation in
Land-Rover with assistance of a CMMS'', Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering,
Vol. 1 No. 4.
Cheng, T.C.E. and Podolsky, S. (1996), Just-in-Time Manufacturing: An Introduction, 2nd ed.,
Chapman and Hall, London.
Clarke, L. (1994), The Essence of Managing Change, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Dale, B.G. (1994), Managing Quality, 2nd ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Davenport, T. (1993), Process Innovation: Re-engineering Work through Information Technology,
Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Davis, R. (1997), ``Making TPM a part of factory life'', TPM Experience (Project EU 1190,
Sponsored by the DTI), Findlay.
Deming, W.E. (1986), Out of the Crisis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
University Press, MA.
DTI (1988), Effective Maintenance ± A Route to Increased Profitability, Department of Trade and
Industry Publication, Managing Into the 90's Series, London.
JQME Dunn, C. (1995), ``Factors affecting successful implementation of total quality management'', MSc
Thesis, University of Salford.
5,3 Hammer, M. and Champy, J. (1993), Re-engineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business
Revolution, Nicholas Brearley, London.
Hartmann, E.H. (1992), Successfully Installing TPM in a Non-Japanese Plant: Total Productive
Maintenance, TPM Press Inc, London.
180 Holder, R. (1996), ``Major profits for Rover and LMP as TPM proves itself'', Works Management,
August, pp. 16-17.
Holder, R. (1997), ``GKN and Ferodo reap rhe Rewards'', TPM Experience (Project EU 1190,
Sponsored by the DTI), Findlay, UK.
Hutchins, D. (1998), ``Introducing TPM'', Manufacturing Engineer, February 1998, pp. 34-7.
Institute of Quality Assurance (1998), ``The teachings of Dr Joseph Juran'', Quality World, April.
Jewitt, R. (1991), JIT: The Route to Success, DTI Publication, Managing into the 90's Series.
Jones, R. (1997), ``When commitment makes it work'', TPM Experience (Project EU 1190,
Sponsored by the DTI), June.
Maskell, B. H. (1994), New Performance Measures, Productivity Press, Cambridge, MA.
McBride, V.E. (1986), ``In today's market: quality is best focal point for management'', Industrial
Engineering, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp 51-5.
McCarthy, D. (1997), ``To benefit, change the way you manage'', TPM Experience (Project EU
1190, Sponsored by the DTI), Findlay, UK.
Nakajima, S. (1988), TPM: Introduction to Total Productive Maintenance, Productivity Press Inc.
Nakajima, S. (1989), TPM Development Program: Implementing Total Productive Maintenance,
Productivity Press Inc, Cambridge, MA.
Naylor, J. (1996), Operations Management, Pitman Publishing, Boston, MA, pp. 255-82.
Ohno, T. (1988), The Toyota Production System: Beyond Large Scale Production, Productivity
Press, Cambridge, MA.
Parker, A. (1995), ``Maintaining the shop floor'', Manufacturing Engineer, December 1995,
pp. 290-5.
Perry, R. (1993), ``TPM at Rover Group'', Conference on Systematic Maintenance, January,
Institute of Industrial Research, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Revenaugh, D.L. (1994), ``Implementing major organisational change: can we really do it?'', The
TQM Magazine, Vol. 6 No. 6, pp. 38-48.
Rhyne, D.M. (1990), ``Total plant performance advantages through total productive
maintenance'', APICS, Conference Proceedings, Birmingham, pp. 683-6.
Schonberger, R.J. (1987), World Class Manufacturing Casebook: Implementing JIT and TQC, The
Free Press, New York, NY.
Sharp, J.M. and Kutuocuoglu, K.Y. (1997), ``Striving for quality in maintenance within
manufacturing organisations'', IFRIM 1997 Meeting Proceedings, The Hong Kong
Polytechnic University.
Shirose, K. (1992), TPM for Workshop Leaders, Productivity Press, Inc., Cambridge, MA.
Shirose, K. (1994), TPM for Operators, Productivity Press Inc., Cambridge, MA
Spenley, P. (1992), World Class Performance Through Total Quality, Chapman and Hall, London.
Suzaki, K. (1987), The New Manufacturing Challenge, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Suzuki, T. (1992), New Directions for TPM, Productivity Press, Cambridge, MA.
Tenner, A.R. and DeToro, I.J. (1992), Total Quality Management: Three Steps to Continuous
Improvement, Addison-Wesley Publishing Co, Reading, MA.
Tajiri, M. and Gotoh, F. (1992), TPM Implementation: A Japanese Approach, McGraw-Hill. Total productive
Willmott, P. (1994), ``TPM's place in the quality scene'', Quality World, November ed., pp. 762-5. maintenance
Willmott, P. (1997), TPM: Total Productive Maintenance: The Western Way, Butterworth-
Heinemann, Oxford.
Willmott, P. (1997a), TPM Experience: Showing the Way to Better Equipment Care Through
Teamwork, EU 1190, Findlay Publications, UK.
Windle. W.W. (1993), ``TPM: more alphabet soup or a useful plant improvement concept'', Plant 181
Engineering, Vol. 47.2, February, pp. 62-3.
Wireman, T. (1991), Total Productive Maintenance: An American Approach, Industrial Press
Inc., New York, NY.
Womack, J.P. and Jones, D.T. (1996), Lean Thinking: Banish Waste and Create Wealth in your
Corporation, Simon and Schuster Publications, New York, NY.
Yeomans, M. and Millington, P. (1997), ``Getting maintenance into TPM'', Manufacturing
Engineer, August, pp. 170-3.