Modern Maintenance Management Approaches:

Impact of TPM on Manufacturing Productivity

Dr. Attia Hussien Gomaa

attiagomaa@yahoo.com

Abstract:

Total productive maintenance (TPM) has a positive and significant

relationship with lower costs, higher levels of quality, and stronger delivery
performance, and hence improving plant productivity. The aim of this work is
to study the effectiveness and implementation of the TPM for industrial
companies.

Reviewing the literature, TPM benefits may be concluded as follows: 25 to

50% improvement in OEE; 30 to 40% improvement in labour productivity; 25
to 30% reduction in product defects; 10 to 30% reduction in maintenance cost;
20 to 50% reduction in unplanned maintenance; 5 to 15% reduction in
manufacturing cost; and hence, 20 to 30% improvement in total system
productivity.

As a conclusion, this research focused on the ways in which Egyptian

manufacturing industries can implement TPM as a strategy and culture for
improving its performance and effectiveness.

KEY WORDS: Total Productive Maintenance - TPM Implementation - TPM

Case Study – Performance Evaluation - Overall Equipment Effectiveness.

1 /30
1- INTRODUCTION

Refer to BS3811:2000, maintenance is the work under taken in order to keep

or restore a facility to an acceptable standard level. The maintenance
management (MM) of plant, facilities and other assets to maintain peak
performance is vital to productivity and profit. Down time and unplanned
stoppages can present serious issues for business continuity, service levels,
operational costs and revenue generation, [Dunks 2005]. MM is a powerful
systematic methodology to maximize the facility performance and to improve
the maintenance resource productivity, through optimizing the maintenance
policies for the critical equipment, [Gomaa (2005) and Dunks 2005].

As shown in figure (1), the maintenance policies can be classified into five
major policies; which are failure based, time based, condition based, risk
based and total based. Reviewing the literature, the maintenance
management history can be summarized as shown in Figure (2). in general,
the evolution of maintenance changes usually is categorized into four different
generation, the period of (1930 to 1950) which usually referred as the first
Generation, between (1950 to 1970) often recognized as the second
generation, while between (1970 to 1990) referred as the third Generation,
and the 1990’s till recent which commonly accepted as the fourth generation.
As shown in this figure, beginning in the 80’s, the reliability and availability
have become a key issues since any failure can have a serious consequences to
the whole division. While the main target of the fourth generation is how to
maximize the system productivity through achieving zero breakdowns and
improving the critical resource utilization, [Venkatesh, 2003, Gomaa 2005,
Gomaa et al. 2005].

2 /30
 Maintenance Policies
(5)
(1) Total-Based
Failure-Based
Global (GM):
Reactive (ReM):
- OSM
- RTF
(3) - TPM
- CM
- FF Condition-Based
(2) Predictive (PdM):
Time-Based - Oil analysis
Preventive (PM): (4)
- Vibration analysis
- Calendar: Risk-Based
- Temperature analysis
Weekly Proactive (PoM):
- Pressure analysis
Monthly; .. etc. - RCFA
- Wear analysis
- Running: - FMEA \ FMECA
- Efficiency analysis,
1000 R.H. - HAZOP
- .. etc.
1000 K.M.; .. etc. - RCM \ RCM2
Figure (1): Maintenance policies. - RBI

10) TPM
9) OSM
8) RBI
7) RCM\ RCM2
6) FMEA\FMECA
5) HAZOP
4) RCFA
3) PdM
2) PM
1) RTF
Before 1950 1950 - 1970 1970 - 1990 After 1990
1st generation 2nd generation 3rd generation 4th generation
Reactive Preventive Proactive Global
approach approach approach approach

Traditional Modern
maintenance management maintenance management
Maximize equipment Maximize system
availability availability & productivity
Figure (2): Maintenance management history.

3 /30
Reactive maintenance (ReM) is the maintenance that occurs when a system
fails. ReM is costly in terms of money and freight time as well as disruptive to
a workforce ‘s moral. Preventive maintenance (PM) is often referred to as a
use-based maintenance, while, Predictive maintenance (PdM) is referred to as
a condition-based maintenance, under which, diagnostic equipment is used to
measure the physical condition such as vibration and lubrication.

Proactive maintenance (PoM) is a systematic approach to establish a good

maintenance program for critical equipment to improve the system availability
and reduce the maintenance cost, by focusing on the most important functions
of the system, and avoiding or removing maintenance actions that are not
strictly necessary. PoM concentrates on the monitoring and correction of root
causes to equipment failures, [Deshpande, 2003 and Garcia et al., 2003].
There are five PoM approaches which are root cause failure analysis (RCFA),
failure mode effect criticality analysis (FMEA\FMECA), reliability centered
maintenance (RCM\RCM2), risk based inspection (RBI) and hazard and
operability study (HAZOP).

RCFA is a systematic methodology to identify true causes of failures. It can

identify and correct design, operations, maintenance, training, etc.

FMEA provides a logical method to identify failure modes; criticality of these

failures; proposed procedures to address the consequences of these failures;
and recommendations regarding the design of the system. It is a proven
technique used to detect possible failure modes.

HAZOP is a structured method for identifying hazards and problems

associated with the operation of a plant. The results of a HAZOP study allow
engineers to improve the safety of an operation and to highlight operability
problems starting at an early stage in project development to existing plants
which have been operating for many years. For each major component of the
item being studied use HAZOP approach to identify the following:
 Internal pressure envelope deterioration
 External pressure envelope deterioration
 Internals deterioration e.g. tubes
 Location of deterioration
 Rate of deterioration
 Probable failure mode

4 /30
RCM is a systematic risk based maintenance approach to determine the best
maintenance requirements for the critical equipment. RCM is used to control
maintenance operations and costs while improving reliability. Therefore, the
goal of RCM is to determine the critically equipment in any process, and
based on this information, designed a customized preventive/predictive
maintenance strategy for the organization. So, it is the optimum mix of
reactive, time- or interval-based, condition-based, and proactive maintenance
practices. RCM concept was developed in the early 1970s by the Commercial
Airline Industry Maintenance Steering Group. RCM analysis is carried out in
sequenced steps, [Deshpande and Modk, 2002, Mokashi et al., 2002, and
Carretero et al., 2003]:
(1) System selection and information analysis;
(2) System boundary definition;
(3) System description and functional block diagram;
(4) System function and functional failures;
(5) Failure mode and effects analysis;
(6) Logic (decision) tree analysis; and
(7) Task selection

The primary RCM principles are as follows, [Deshpande and Modk, 2002,
Mokashi et al., 2002, Carretero et al., 2003 and xxxxx 2005]:
 RCM is Function Oriented - RCM seeks to preserve system or
equipment function, not just operability for operability's sake.
Redundancy of function, through multiple pieces of equipment,
improves functional reliability but increases life-cycle cost in terms of
procurement and operating costs.
 RCM is System Focused—RCM is more concerned with maintaining
system function than with individual component function.
 RCM is Reliability Centered—RCM treats failure statistics in an
actuarial manner. The relationship between operating age and the
failures experienced is important. RCM is not overly concerned with
simple failure rate; it seeks to know the conditional probability of
failure at specific ages (the probability that failure will occur in each
given operating age bracket).
 RCM Acknowledges Design Limitations—RCM objective is to
maintain the inherent reliability of the equipment design, recognizing
that changes in inherent reliability are the province of design rather than
of maintenance. Maintenance can, at best, only achieve and maintain
the level of reliability for equipment that was provided for by design.
However, RCM recognizes that maintenance feedback can improve on

5 /30
 the original design. In addition, RCM recognizes that a difference often
exists between the perceived design life and the intrinsic or actual
design life and addresses this through the Age Exploration (AE)
process.
 RCM is Driven by Safety, Security, and Economics—Safety and
security must be ensured at any cost; thereafter, cost-effectiveness
becomes the criterion.
 RCM Defines Failure as "Any Unsatisfactory Condition"—Therefore,
failure may be either a loss of function (operation ceases) or a loss of
acceptable quality (operation continues but impacts quality).
 RCM Uses a Logic Tree to Screen Maintenance Tasks—this provides a
consistent approach to the maintenance of all kinds of equipment.
 RCM Tasks Must Be Applicable—the tasks must address the failure
mode and consider the failure mode characteristics.
 RCM Tasks Must Be Effective—the tasks must reduce the probability
of failure and be cost-effective.
 RCM Acknowledges Three Types of Maintenance Tasks—these tasks
are time-directed (PM), condition-directed (CM), and failure finding
(one of several aspects of Proactive Maintenance). Time-directed tasks
are scheduled when appropriate. Condition-directed tasks are performed
when conditions indicate they are needed. Failure-finding tasks detect
hidden functions that have failed without giving evidence of pending
failure. Additionally, performing no maintenance, Run-to-Failure, is a
conscious decision and is acceptable for some equipment.
 RCM is a Living System—RCM gathers data from the results achieved
and feeds this data back to improve design and future maintenance. This
feedback is an important part of the Proactive Maintenance element of
the RCM program

Refer to API 581:2000, RBI is a process of carrying out risk analysis to

determine an optimum inspection plan for the critical systems, [API
581:1998]. As shown in Figure (3) RBI is carried out in sequenced steps:
(1) System selection and information analysis;
(2) HAZOP for each major component;
(3) Risk Analysis;
(4) Resolution of actions (proactive policy);
(5) Develop inspection plans (short, annual, and long terms);
(6) Execution of inspection; and
(7) Repairs & modifications.

6 /30
 System Existing HAZOP Risk
selection inspection plan analysis

Corrective Implementation Future Proactive

actions inspection plan policy

Figure (3): RBI for critical systems.

Risk Analysis: For each location where possible deterioration has

been identified:
 Estimate the probability of failure
 Consequence of failure:
o Safety, health or environment
o Business Impact
o Equipment repair cost

GM is an integrated approach for maintenance management to maximize

system/equipment effectiveness to achieve optimum life cycle cost of
production equipment; [Venkatesh, 2003]. Figure (4) shows a global
approach outline. There are two global approaches which are optimal system
maintenance (OSM) and total productive maintenance (TPM).

OSM approaches focus on mathematical modeling and developing optimal

policies to inspect, repair, or replace equipment based on its specific reliability
characteristics. Generally, an OSM policy may be the one which either;
[Wang, 2002, Komonen, 2002, Kyriakidis and Dimitrakos, 2004, Shalaby et
al., 2004, and Gomaa et al. 2005]:
(a) minimizes system maintenance cost rate;
(b) maximizes the system reliability measures;
(c) minimizes system maintenance cost rate while the system reliability
requirements are satisfied; or
(d) maximizes the system reliability measures when the requirements for the
system maintenance cost are satisfied

7 /30
 Critical
Scope Time resources
For the
different
Global management
Performance approach Cost levels

Quality
.. etc.
HSE

Maintenance
Production
management
management Quality
.. etc. management

Global approach
Resource/cost
management
Communication
management
Risk Procurement
management management
Figure (4): Global approach outline.

TPM is an integrated approach for maintenance management to maximize

plant effectiveness by establishing a comprehensive productive-maintenance
system. TPM is the systematic execution of maintenance by all employees
through small group activities. The dual goals of TPM are zero breakdowns
and zero defects. TPM was defined by Japanese Institute of Plant Engineers
(JIPE) in 1971. TPM involves operational and maintenance staff working
together as a team to reduce wastage, minimize downtime and improve end-
product quality [Tsang, 2000, Eti et al., 2004 and Gomaa 2005].

Modern management approaches (such as TQM, JIT, TPM, and RCM) have
similar fundamental goals of continuous improvement. Together the practices
of these approaches form a comprehensive and consistent set of
manufacturing practices directed towards improved performance. Figure (5)
shows the relation TPM and the other modern approaches. However, most of

8 /30
the previous studies investigate these approaches separately. So, in an effort to
increase organizational capabilities, companies have made investments in
these approaches. As shown in Figure (6), any company includes multi-plant,
each plant includes much equipment. TPM can be carried out in a productive
plant or system level (i.e. management level 2).

TQM

Documentation tools Implementation tools

Productive systems Procurement

ISO series management management

TPM JIT / SC

Maintenance Safety Process Human resource

management management management management
RCM RBI PCP TA

Figure (5): Relation between the different modern management approaches.

9 /30
 A company

TQM Level 1
Productive Sectors Supportive Sectors

ISO Plant P01 Plant P0K Plant P0N

TPM Level 2
JIT
Production management Resources management

RCM Level 3
Process Equipment Materials HR
RBI Manag. Manag. Manag. Manag.

FMEA
Level 4 Production area/site P0K
HAZOP (Equipment , Manpower, Materials, Safety, .. etc.)
PM-PdM

Figure (6): TPM management level.

This study highlights the articles that provide the best descriptions of TPM
and its implementation process, as well as the relationship between TPM and
system productivity. Finally, an outline of TPM information system (TPMIS)
is proposed.

10 /30
2- TOTAL PRODUCTIVE MAINTENANCE OVERVIEW:
TPM is an integrated approach for maintenance management to maximize
equipment effectiveness by establishing a comprehensive productive-
maintenance system. TPM was defined by Japanese Institute of Plant
Engineers (JIPE) in 1971. TPM involves operational and maintenance staff
working together as a team to reduce wastage, minimize downtime and
improve end-product quality [Tsang, 2000 and Eti et al., 2004].

In literature, TPM is defined in a number of different ways, which are as

follow:
 TPM is an organizational philosophy which focusing on equipment and
operations to achieve optimum results. It is a manufacturing program
designed primarily to maximize equipment effectiveness throughout its
entire life through the participation and motivation of the entire work force
[Nakajima, 1989].
 TPM is a partnership between the maintenance and production
organization. It is an attitude, process, culture change to operate equipment
under optimum conditions [Hartmann, 1992].
 TPM provides a comprehensive life cycle approach to equipment
management that minimizes equipment failures, production defects, and
accidents. It involves everyone in the organization, from top level
management to production mechanics, and production support groups to
outside suppliers. The objective is to continuously improve the availability
and prevent the degradation of equipment to achieve maximum
effectiveness. These objectives require strong management support as well
as continuous use of work teams and small group activities [Hamacher,
1996].

TPM is an approach to continuously improve productivity of plant and

equipment, through the following:
 Improving and maintaining equipment at optimum conditions,
 Improving end-product quality (e.g. by insisting on purchasing better
designs) and services (e.g. through better-maintained plant and machines),
 Education and training of manpower, so empowering them and raising
morale, to keep pace with the complexity of evolving technologies,
 Technological base of a company by enhancing equipment technology and
improving the skill of manpower, and
 Information availability for all maintenance and production tasks.

11 /30
There are many different TPM approaches; however, the common elements in
all of them are training, implementation, and stabilization plus careful
management for planning and execution. TPM procedures may be considered
to be in five phases; the following are the major activities in each phase:

 Phase 1. TPM feasibility study: This phase focuses on the cost benefits
analysis and decision making processes;

 Phase 2. Problem identification and developing equipment awareness:

It includes study the organization, analyze the existing maintenance
problems, analyze the working conditions, start the equipment awareness
program, and identify the critical machine and components.

 Phase 3. TPM procedure development: This phase deals with collect all
information on machines, development standard servicing procedures,
development proper operator communication channels, development
continuous feedback for operator response, development quality
consciousness among operators, develop self-maintenance procedures,
develop data collection procedures, develop training materials, and
develop quality feedback system.

 Phase 4. Initial implementation program: It focuses on customize the

servicing procedure for the specific machine, conduct training, implement
procedures and policies, problem solving through problem solving
techniques, and feedback from operators and audits.

 Phase 5. TPM Program Maintenance and stabilization: This phase

deals with develop the structure and policies for the TPM steering
committee, develop information flow, develop guidelines for maintenance
scheduling, conduct advanced training, develop guidelines for machine
trend reports and improvements, develop procedures for document control,
feedback and improvement, and company-wide TPM implementation
program.

Hartmann (1992) emphasized the need to customize the TPM process to work
for the specific manager, in the specific environment, with the specific people.
He indicates that there are country, plant, and management specific aspects of
TPM implementation.

12 /30
McKone and Weiss (1998) identify significant gaps between industry practice
and academic research and emphasized the need to bridge these gaps by
providing guidelines for implementing TPM activities. Finally, Bamber et al.
(1999) outlined ten main reasons for TPM failure within UK manufacturing
organizations. As shown in Figure (7), These are: (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; (8) attempts to
apply TPM in the same way it is implemented in Japan, using the standard
approach found in Japanese publications; (9) TPM teams lack the necessary
mix of skills and experience; and (10) poor structure to support the TPM
teams and their activities.

In addition, the main factors which affecting successful implementation of the

modern management approaches are shown in figure (8). These factors can be
summarized in the following nine factors: information availability; targets and
constraints definition; performance evaluation; system criticality analysis;
feasibility study; master plan; team approach; manpower training; and finally,
motivation and direction. As shown in Figure (9), TPM implementation can
reduce the manufacturing cost and increase the revenue, and hence maximize
the organization profit, [Gomaa 2005].

13 /30
 TPM
failures

Figure (7): Main reasons for TPM failure.

Manpower Performance
training evaluation
Feasibility Information
study availability

Successful
Implementation
of TPM
Motivation & Master plan Target /constraints
direction
Team approach System criticality definition
analysis

Figure (8): Factors affecting successful implementation of TPM.

Successful TPM Implementation

Minimize the Reduce the Improve the plant

production losses maintenance cost performance

Reduce the cost Increase the revenue

Increase the profit

Figure (9): How successful TPM maximize organization profit.

14 /30
Refer to [McKone et al. 1999], Figure (10) considers the relationship among
the environmental, organizational, and managerial factors, and the
autonomous and planned TPM elements. They hypothesize that there are
significant differences in the level of TPM development and implementation
that can be explained. Also, he showed that the implementation level of TPM
was closely linked to the implementation level of Just in Time (JIT), Total
Quality Management (TQM), and Employee Involvement (EI). Companies
with higher implementation levels of JIT, TQM, and EI also had higher
implementation levels of TPM.

TPM Country
Autonomous Maintenance Environmental
context Industry
Housekeeping
Cross training Equipment age
Teams Equipment type
Organizational
Operator involvement context Company size
Plant age
Planned Maintenance Utilization

Information tracking
EI
Disciplined planning Managerial
context JIT
Schedule compliance
TQM

Figure (10): TPM framework, [McKone et al. 1999].

Literature review indicates that, the previous TPM implementation studies

concerned on only equipment management and manpower training modules.
Most of these studies did not take into consideration the whole plant modules,
which are equipment, production, material, and manpower management
modules. Also, most of the previous studies focused on the short-term TPM
maintenance efforts. Moreover, this review indicates that TPM approach is
not conventionally applied in process industries in Egypt.

15 /30
 3- MEASUREMENT OF TPM EFFECTIVENESS:

The performance of a maintenance system in complex industrial plants

depends on many parameters such as system reliability, availability and
maintenance costs. TPM try to improve these parameters through minimize
the equipment losses, which can be classified into six major categories. As
shown in Table (1), the first two losses are defined as down-time losses,
which refer to time when the machine should be running, but it stands still.
The third and fourth losses are speed losses, in which the equipment is
running, but it is not running at its maximum designed speed. The last two
losses are regarded as quality losses, in which the products do not fully meet
the specified quality characteristics. Table (1) and figures (11 and 13) show
the key performance indicators (KPI) for the maintenance systems, [Johnson
et al., 1999, Dismukes, 2002 and Gomaa 2005].

Table 1: Equipment Losses Categories

Category Equipment losses Indicator
Down-time losses Equipment failures Equipment availability
(lost availability) Set-up and adjustments
Speed losses Idling and minor stoppages Equipment performance
(lost performance) Reduced speed operation efficiency
Defect losses Scrap and rework Equipment quality Rate
(lost quality) Start-up losses

Total Time (TT)

Planned Time (PT) PD

Available Time (AT) DL

Operating Time (OT) SB

Net operating Time (NT) SL

Productive Time (PrT) QL

Non-productive Time (NT)

Figure (11) : Equipment time categories.

16 /30
 System Effectiveness

Efficiency Availability

Reliability Maintainability
Utilization & MTBF MTTR
Resource productivity MTBM MTTM
Figure (12) : System efficiency and availability.

High availability performance is achieved by three factors: (1) reliability

performance, (2) maintainability performance and (3) supportability
(maintenance). The states of factors are often measured by the following
indicators: mean time between failure (MTBF), mean time to repair (MTTR),
mean time to failures (MTTF), mean time between repair (MTBR), and mean
time between maintenance (MTBM).

Traditional KPI

Time Indicators Resource Indicators Cost Indicators

Total: Workers: Spare parts cost:

Availability Worker productivity: Total spare parts cost
Utilization Man-hour/Total time
Man-hour/Operating time Spare parts cost rate:
Uptime ratio
Man-hour/Down time $/Operating time
$/Production unit
PM:
Worker Utilization:
MTBM CM/PM S.P. cost ratio
Used Man-hour /
MTTM
Total Man-hour
Labor cost:
CM: CM/PM Man-hour % Total labor cost
Reliability
MTBF Spare parts: Labor cost rate:
MTTR Spare parts consumption rates $/Operating time
CM/PM Operating time/Spare part unit
Production unit/Spare part unit CM/PM labor cost ratio
Figure (13): Maintenance performance indicators.

17 /30
As shown in Figure (14), the TPM performance evaluation includes three
types of indicators, which are time performance, resource productivity, and
cost performance indicators.
Modern KPI
TEEP
OEE NEE
Utilization Uptime ratio
Availability × ×
× Availability Performance efficiency
Performance efficiency × ×
× Performance efficiency Quality rate
Quality rate ×
Quality rate

Figure (14): TPM performance indicators.

Overall equipment effectiveness (OEE) is used as a main measure for TPM,

which is a function of equipment availability, performance rate, and quality
rate. The goal of measuring OEE is to improve the equipment effectiveness.

OEE = Equipment Availability x Performance efficiency x Quality rate

(1)
Raouf (1994) described a new method of computing OEE, using different
weights. He concluded that traditional means of evaluating maintenance
management systems could not yield higher capital productivity. Factors
affecting OEE are not equally important in all cases and different weights
should be established. Furthermore, Lungberg (1998) stated that the definition
of OEE does not take into account all factors that reduce the capacity
utilization, for example, for planned downtime, lack of material input, lack of
labour, etc. In order to make the OEE meaningful, the losses should be
subdivided into further sub-groups.

Referring to the work of Chand and Shirvani (2000), the true perf o rmance of
the equipment productivity is measured by total effective equipment
productivity (TEEP), which is a combined measure of equipment utilization
and OEE. The latter can be improved at the expense of equipment utilization
by scheduling PPM and product changeovers during planned downtime. The
OEE is not an exact measure of equipment effectiveness as set-up,
changeovers and adjustments are included. Therefore, to provide a more

18 /30
accurate analysis, the net equipment effectiveness (NEE) can be measured that
reflects the true quality and effectiveness of the equipment when running.

TEEP =Utilization x Availability x Performance efficiency x Quality rate

(2)
NEE = Uptime ratio x Performance efficiency x Quality rate
(3)
Chan et al. (2003) developed a simple method for monitoring the perf o
rmance of machine was the Mean unit between assists (MUBA) instead of
OEE.

MUBA = Total number of units produced / Number of stoppages

(4)
According to the studies of Campbell (2001) and Tsang (2002), there are
many diff e rent ways of measuring manufacturing productivity (MP). The
commonly used maintenance-performance indicators are measures of the
following: (1) equipment performance, such as availability, reliability and
OEE; (2) process performance, such as the ratio of achieved to planned work,
as well as of schedule compliance; and (3) cost performance, such as labour
and material costs of maintenance.

In conclusion, OEE is a basic fundamental measurement method for TPM. It

requires a wider classification of losses for better understanding of machine
utilization. Furthermore, levels of OEE measurement and the factors affecting
it diff e rent in various business sectors and industries. Thus, a tailor-made
OEE in different industries or business sectors is required.

19 /30
4- IMPACT OF TPM ON PRODUCTIVITY IMPROVEMENT

The impact of TPM on improving productivity has been stated in many

studies, and there is a lot of excellent case studies, for examples; Varughese
(1993) studied the effectiveness and implementation of TPM program for
SEMD Company for wood products. He concluded that, TPM model
contributes the following tangible benefits: reduction in emergency
maintenance hours (almost 35%), improving in production quantity (about
25%), reduction in manufacturing cost (almost 15%), and improving in
product quality (about 2%). Moreover, TPM achieved many intangible
benefits such as: reduce the communication problem, and promotion of team
approach, and improve operator satisfaction.

Koelsch (1993) and Mckone et al. (2001) re f e rred to that, the benefits from
implementing TPM have been well documented at numerous plants.
Constance Dyer, Director of Research and TPM Product Development,
Productivity Inc., says that companies that adopt TPM are seeing 50%
reductions in breakdown labor rates, 70% reductions in lost production, 50-
90% reductions in setups, 25-40% increases in capacity, 50% increases in
labor productivity, and 60% reductions in costs per maintenance unit.

Sivalingam (1997) stated that, an integrated TPM when properly implemented

can lessen emergencies by 75%, cut purchasing by 25%, increase warehouse
accuracy by 95% and improve preventative maintenance by 200%". He
pointed to, with maintenance costs raising from 9% to 11% per annum, the
potential for savings is very high in the short and long term. Good
management of maintenance can reduce costs by as much as 35%. Renner et
al. (2003) re p o rted that TPM has a very high success rate in improvement of
equipment effectiveness, ownership of equipment productivity and
maintenance, increased maintenance skills, more effective management of
equipment and even predictive maintenance. Typical manufacturers are
experiencing up to 65% OEE improvements, quality improvements up to 50%
and maintenance expenditure reductions of up to 50%.

Hutchins (1998) reported results of two TPM case studies. The first one was
Nissan, Tochigi car manufacturing with 7000 employee, in which the results
are concluded as follows: (1) number of cars passing QC first time (no
rework) increased by 70%; (2) number of plant breakdowns reduced by 80%;
(3) overall equipment efficiency increased by 30%; and (4) comment from the
company: “we cannot management our plant without TPM”. The second case

20 /30
was Nippon Lever, Utsunomiya plant (Manufacturing Lux soap, household
cleaners), in which the results are as follows: (1) reduction in operating costs -
£2.8 Million; (2) cost of introducing TPM £90000!; (3) production efficiency
(Domestic filling line - up from 76% to 95% and high speed soap line - up
from 54% to 85%); and (4) comment from company “the ideal status of a
machine is to have no defects, no breakdowns. You may think that’s
impossible. But when you see the Nippon Lever plant, you realize it is
possible”. Also, he re p o rted that, typical calculations for OEE usually range
between (40 to 50%), but experience indicates that it is possible to raise this to
between (80 to 90%) in a period of some two to three years from TPM start
up.

Chand and Shirvani (2000) applied a TPM program within a semi-automated

assembly cell. The production output of the cell over the observed period was
26 515 unit. This re p resents 97% good components, 0.33% scrap and 2.67%
rework. The number of stoppages recorded was 156, where the 10 most
common causes were identified. The OEE was 62% and the six big losses
represent 38% loss of the productive time.

Chan et al. (2003) achieved a TPM program for an electronics manufacturing

company in Hong Kong. This company is a multinational company, which
employs more than 2500 people. TPM is implemented in the first quarter of
1998 and ended in 2000. In conclusion the following benefits were observed
after TPM implementation: (1) Effective equipment management: the
equipment productivity was improved by about 83%. Also, the equipment
stoppage rate was reduced from 517 to 89 times. This tremendous
improvement enhanced the equipment in both effectiveness and quality in
product produced; and (2) Empowerment of employees: empowering the
workforce caused a development of a bright, cheerful and relaxed workplace
for production people.

Moreover, many case studies have told similar success stories, such as:
 Steel [Koelsch, 1993 and Gomaa 2005];
 Tennessee Eastman [Garwood, 1990];
 Nissan [Suzuki, 1992];
 Nippondenso [Teresko, 1992];
 Automotive Compressor [MACI, 1995];
 Boeing Commercial Airplane [Hamacher, 1996];
 A semi-automated assembly cell [Chand and Shirvani, 2000];
 Large Global companies [Ireland and Dale, 2001];

21 /30
  Pulp and Paper [Van-der-Wal and Lynn, 2002];
 Ceramics [Ferrari et al., 2002]; and
 Electronics [Chan et al., 2003].

In summary, TPM benefits may be concluded as follows:

- Tangible benefits:
(1) Improvement in OEE (25 to 50%);
(2) Improvement in labour productivity (30 to 40%);
(3) Reduction in product defects (25 to 30%);
(4) Reduction in maintenance cost (10 to 30%);
(5) Reduction in unplanned maintenance (20 to 50%);
(6) Reduction in manufacturing cost (5 to 15%); and hence;
(7) Improvement in total system productivity (20 to 30%).

- Intangible benefits:
• Promotion of team approach;
• Improve operator satisfaction;
• Empowerment of manpower; and hence
• Reduce the communication problem.

5. PROPOSED TPM-IMPLEMENTATION METHODOLOGY

Referring to the literature review, the proposed TPM implementation

methodology of this study can apply anywhere in an organization, from the
highest levels of a company down to the area where a specific task is
accomplished. The elements of continuous improvement are built into the
proposed methodology. The proposed TPM implementation methodology is
carried out as sequenced steps as follows:
1. TPM feasibility study;
2. TPM team building & training;
3. Plant criticality analysis;
4. Plant selection and information analysis;
5. Evaluate and understand the current situation;
6. Define the TPM targets and constraints;
7. Design and develop of plant performance evaluation system;
8. Construct the TPM master plan;
9. Design of TPM information system;
10. Manpower education and training;

22 /30
 11. Manpower motivation and direction;
12. Implementation of the TPM Plan;
13. Review the implementation of the plan;
14. Plant performance evaluation; and
15. Corrective actions & continuous improvement.

6. Proposed TPM Information System

Information availability is a back-bone of TPM. It should be at such a detailed

level that it fulfils its objectives. So, an outline of TPM Information System
(TPMIS) is addressed. As shown in Figure (15), the proposed system
comprises six modules, which are master plan, equipment, production,
human-resource, risk analysis, and finally overall system analysis module,
(refer to Figures (14 through 18)). This system should help the TPM program
to be more effective and easily adaptable to any manufacturing set up. In the
future development of this system, more modules should be added, and the
content of each module should be carefully elaborated, [Gomaa 2005].

Max.
Main target
OEE

TPM Master
plan
TPM WBS
RCM HRP
Equipment Human-resource
module module
PCP RBI
Production Risk analysis
module module
KPI

Overall system
KPI analysis module KPI
Top & control Feed back Operational management
management (departments & workshops)
Figure 15: Proposed TPMIS Outline.

23 /30
 Inputs Technique Outputs

Equipment list - Information analysis

Historical information - Autonomous m.
Equipment priority Computerized programs
PM information Maintenance - Planned m. programs
CM information Management - Eq. design modifications
Failure modes & effect System - Spare parts plans
Working conditions (CMMS) - Maintenance costs
Cost rates - Downtime losses
Constraints &
limitations - Equipment
performance
indicators

Figure 14: Block Diagram for Equipment Module.

Inputs Technique Outputs

Master production plan - Production plans

Bill of materials (BOM) - Materials plans
Process planning sheets Computerized - Manpower plans
Resource requirements Production - Inventory control
Working conditions Management - Quality control
Available capacities System - Cost estimation
Required capacities (CPMS) - Manufacturing costs
Cost rates - Production losses
Actual production
Constraints & - Production
limitations performance
indicators

Figure 15: Block Diagram for Production Module.

24 /30
 Inputs Technique Outputs

Production plans - Responsibility

Maintenance plans Computerized assignment
Manpower Human-resource - Manpower plan
requirements Management - Organization chart
Available capacities System - Training plans
Required capacities (CHMS) - Motivation rules
Cost rates
Constraints - Manpower
performance
indicators

Figure 16: Block Diagram for Human-Resource Module.

Inputs Technique Outputs

Historical Computerized - Risk management plan

information Risk Management - Corrective actions
Activities description System - Lessons learned
Risk sources (CRMS)
Risk modes & effect - Risk performance
Constraints indicators

Figure 17: Block Diagram for Risk Analysis Module.

Inputs Technique Outputs

Eq. perf. indicators Computerized - OEE

Prod. perf. Performance - TEEP
indicators Evaluation - NEE
Manpower perf. ind. System - Total system
Risk perf. indicators (CPES) productivity

Other indicators - Others indicators

- Problems & solutions

Figure 18: Block Diagram for Overall System Analysis Module.

25 /30
7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This study emphasizes the importance of TPM implementation in

manufacturing plants, and its impact on improving plant productivity. TPM
benefits may be concluded as follows: 25 to 50% improvement in OEE; 30 to
40% improvement in labour productivity; 25 to 30% reduction in product
defects; 10 to 30% reduction in maintenance cost; 20 to 50% reduction in
unplanned maintenance; 5 to 15% reduction in manufacturing cost; and hence,
20 to 30% improvement in total system productivity. In conclusion, these
benefits resulted from the change of organizational culture, human-resource
management, communication management, and the relationship between
maintenance, productivity and quality.

However, to gain the full benefits of TPM, it should be customized and

applied in the proper amounts, in the proper situations, and be integrated with
the manufacturing system and other improvement approaches such as TQM
and JIT. TPM depends on the information availability to achieve its target, so,
an outline of TPMIS has been developed. In future development of this
system, more modules should be added, and the content of each module
should be carefully elaborated upon.

Based on this research, the author recommends that practitioners pay closer
attention to their maintenance management practices and their impact not only
on costs but also on quality and delivery performance. Hopefully, this type of
research will support and encourage successful implementation of TPM.

However, some critical factors are required to be considered during the future
research of TPM implementation:
 Information Management: the TPM effectiveness measurement is usually
made by the OEE measurement, which is a function of availability,
performance efficiency and quality rate. Large amount of data collection
related to the three factors are required, so information management is the
crucial factors for successful data collection.
 Resources management: Resources allocation is one of the crucial factors
for TPM implementation, as the need of manpower for maintenance
training is increased with the implementation of TPM for the remaining
production equipment.
 RCM approach in PM system: The ultimate goal for TPM, with respect to
equipment, is to increase its effectiveness to its highest potential and to
maintain it at that level. In this connection, a development of an effective

26 /30
 preventive maintenance system using RCM is required to optimize
preventive maintenance strategies.

REFERENCES:
1. Bamber, C.J., Sharp J.M., and Hides, M.T., "Factors affecting successful
implementation of total productive maintenance: A UK manufacturing
case study perspective", Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering,
V.5 N.3, pp. 162-181, (1999).
2. Ben-Daya, M., "You may need RCM to enhance TPM implementation",
Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, V. 6, N. 2, pp. 82–85,
(2000).
3. Campbell, J.D. and Jardine, A.K.S., "Maintenance excellence: optimizing
equipment life-cycle decisions", Marcel Dekker, New York, (2001).
4. Carretero, J., Pérez, J. M., García-Carballeira, et al., "Applying RCM in
large scale systems: a case study with railway networks" Reliability
Engineering & System Safety, V.82, N. 3, pp. 257-273, (2003).
5. Chan, F.T.S., Lau, H.C.W., Ip, R.W.L., Chan, H.K., and Kong, S.,
"Implementation of total productive maintenance: A case study",
International Journal of Production Economics, Article in Press, Elsevier,
(2003).
6. Chand, G. and Shirvani, B., " Implementation of TPM in cellular
manufacture", Journal of Materials Processing Technology, V.103, N.1,
pp. 149-154, (2000).
7. Cua, K.O., McKone, K.E., and Schroeder, R.G., "Relationships between
implementation of TQM, JIT, and TPM and manufacturing performance",
Journal of Operations Management V.19, N. 6 , Pages 675-694, (2001).
8. Dal, B., Tugwell, P. and Greatbanks, R., "Overall equipment effectiveness
as a measure of operational improvement", a practical analysis.
International Journal of Operations and Production Management, V.20,
N.12, pp. 1488–1502, (2000).
9. Deshpande, V.S. and Modk, J.P., "Application of RCM to a medium scale
industry" Reliability Engineering & System Safety, V.77, N. 1 , pp. 31-43,
(2002).
10. Deshpande, V.S., “Maintenance strategy for tilting table of rolling mill
based on reliability considerations”, Reliability Engineering & System
Safety, V.80, N.1, pp.1-18, (2003).
11. Dismukes, J.P., "Factory level metrics: Basis for productivity
improvement", International Conference on Modeling and Analysis of

27 /30
 Semiconductor Manufacturing (MASM), Arizona, pp. 124-129, USA,
(2002).
12. Dunks, B., "Enterprise asset management survey", Maintenance Journal;
V. 18, N. 2, pp. 18-23, May 2005.
13. Eti, M.C. , Ogaji, S.O.T., Probert, S.D. "Implementing total productive
maintenance in Nigerian manufacturing industries" Applied Energy,
Article in Press, Elsevier, (2004).
14. Ferrari, E., Pareschi, A., Persona, A. and Regattieri, A., "TPM: situation
and procedure for a soft introduction in Italian factories", TQM Magazine,
V.14, N. 6, pp. 350-358, (2002).
15. Garcia, M., Fausto, P., Schmid, F., Conde Collado, J., “A reliability
centered approach to remote condition monitoring: A railway points case
study”, Reliability Engineering & System Safety, V. 80, N. 1, pp. 33-41,
(2003).
16. Gomaa, A.H. , Shalaby, M. A., and Mohib, A.M., “Optimal system
maintenance for power stations” Scientific Bulletin Ain-Shams
University, Faculty of Engineering, V.40, N.2, pp.485-499, (2005).
17. Gomaa, A.H., “Impact of TPM on manufacturing productivity”
Maintenance Journal, V. 18, N. 2, pp. 30-38, (2005).
18. Gomaa, A.H., “Optimal maintenance policies for critical equipment”
MDP-8, Cairo University Conference on Mechanical Design and
Production, Cairo, Egypt, pp. 1255-1265, January 4-6, (2004).
19. Gomaa, A.H., “Total productive maintenance implementation” Scientific
Bulletin Ain-Shams University, Faculty of Engineering, V. 40, N. 4,
(2005), (in print).
20. Hamacher, E.C., "A Methodology for implementing total productive
maintenance in the commercial aircraft industry", Master of Science in
Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, (1996).
21. Hartmann, E.H., "Successfully installing TPM in a non-Japanese plant",
TPM Press, Allison Park, PA., (1992).
22. Hutchins, D., "Introducing TPM ", Manufacturing Engineering, V.77, N.1,
pp. 34-36, Feb. (1998).
23. Ireland, F. and Dale, B.G., "A study of total productive maintenance
implementation", Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 7
No. 3, pp. 183-191, (2001).
24. Johnson, P. and Lesshammar, M., "Evaluation and improvement of
manufacturing performance measurement systemsóthe role of OEE",
International Journal of Operations and Production Management, V.19,
N.1, pp. 55-78, (1999).

28 /30
25. Kodali, R.K. and Chandra, S., "Analytical hierarchy process for
justification of total productive maintenance", Production Planning &
Control, V.12, N.7, pp. 695-705, (2001).
26. Koelsch, J.R., "A dose of TPM: downtime needn't be a bitter pill",
Manufacturing Engineering, V. 72, N.2, pp. 63-66, April (1993).
27. Komonen, K., "A cost model of industrial maintenance for profitability
analysis and benchmarking", International Journal of Production
Economics, V.79, pp. 15–31, (2002).
28. Kyriakidis, E.G. and Dimitrakos, T.D., "Optimal preventive maintenance
of a production system with an intermediate buffer", European Journal of
Operational Research, Article in Press, Elsevier, (2004).
29. Lawrence, J.J., "Use mathematical modeling to give your TPM
implementation effort an extra boost", Journal of Quality in Maintenance
Engineering, V. 5, N. 1, pp. 62–69, (1999).
30. Linderman, k., McKone-Sweet, K.E., and Anderson, J.C. "An integrated
systems approach to process control and maintenance", European Journal
of Operational Research, Article in Press, Elsevier, (2004).
31. Lungberg, O., "Measurement of overall equipment effectiveness as a
basic for TPM activities", International Journal of Operations and Prod.
Management, V.18, N.5, pp.495-507, (1998).
32. McKone, K. and Weiss, E.N., "Total productive maintenance: Bridging
the gap between practice and research", Prod. Operations Management,
V.7, N.4, pp. 335-351, (1998).
33. McKone, K.E., Schroeder, R.G. and Cua, K.O. "The impact of total
productive maintenance practices on manufacturing performance", Journal
of Operations Management, V. 19, N. 1, pp. 39-58, (2001).
34. McKone, K.E., Schroeder, R.G. and Cua, K.O., "Total productive
maintenance: a contextual view". Journal of Operations Management, V.
17, N. 2, pp. 123-144, (1999).
35. Mokashi, A.J., Wang, J. and Vermar, A. K. "A study of reliability-
centered maintenancehttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science?
_ob=ArticleURL&_aset=B-WA-A-B-WE-MsSAYWA-UUW-AUEVDZAEUW-
AUEWBVWDUW-CZVUAVCAZ-WE-U&_rdoc=4&_fmt=full&_udi=B6VCD-
45J8YMN-
1&_coverDate=09%2F30%2F2002&_cdi=5952&_orig=search&_st=13&_sort=d&vie
w=c&_acct=C000052544&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1454303&md5=9a68
319233a7e11a5cbd1ce86bdda895 - hit2 in maritime operations", Marine Policy,
V. 26, N. 5 , pp. 325-335, (2002).
36. Nakajima, S., " TPM development program: Implementing total
productive maintenance", Productivity Press Inc., Cambridge, MA, (1989).

29 /30
37. Nakajima, S., "Introduction to total productive maintenance (TPM)",
Productivity Press, Cambridge, (1988).
38. O’Donoghue, C.D., and Prendergast, J.G., "Implementation and benefits
of introducing a computerised maintenance management system into a
textile manufacturing company", Journal of Materials Processing
Technology, Article in Press, Elsevier, (2004).
39. Raouf, A., "Improving capital productivity through maintenance",
International Journal of Operations and Production Management, V.14,
N.7, pp.44-52, (1994).
40. Renner, M., Malicki, R., Ashlock, K., and Jones, R., "Lean manufacturing
& total productive maintenance", The Delaware Valley Industrial Resource
Center (DVIRC), USA, V. 1, (2003).
41. Shalaby, M. A., Gomaa, A.H. and Mohib, A.M., “A genetic algorithm for
preventive maintenance scheduling in a multi-unit multi-state system”
Journal of Engineering and Applied Science, Faculty of Engineering, Cairo
University, V. 51, N. 4, pp. 798-811, (2004).
42. Sherwin, D., "A review of overall models for maintenance management".
Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, V.6, N.3, pp. 138–164,
(2000).
43. Sivalingam, R., "Applying best practices to maintenance: a 12 step
programme for moving down the road to recovery", Plant Engineering, V.
51, N. 6, pp. 120-122, (1997).
44. Swanson, L., "An information-processing model of maintenance
management", International Journal of Production Economics V. 83, N. 1,
pp. 45–64, (2003).
45. Swanson, L., "Linking maintenance strategies to performance",
International Journal of Production Economics, V. 70, N. 3, pp. 237–244,
(2001).
46. Tsang, A.H.C. and Chan, P.K., "TPM implementation in China: case
study", International Conference Quality Reliability, V. 17, N. 2, pp. 144-
157, (2000).
47. Tsang, A.H.C., "Strategic dimensions of maintenance management".
Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, V. 80, N. 1, pp. 7–39,
(2002).
48. Van-der-Wal, R.W.E and Lynn, D., "Total productive maintenance in a
South African pulp and paper company: a case study", TQM Magazine,
V.14, N.6, pp.359-366, (2002).
49. Varughese, K.K., "Total productive maintenance", A Thesis for Master of
Science in Mechanical Engineering, University of Calgary, (1993).

30 /30
50. Waeyenbergh, G. and Pintelon, L., "A framework for maintenance
concept development", Int. Journal of Production Economics, V.77, N.3,
pp.299–313, (2002).
51. Wang, H., "A survey of maintenance policies of deteriorating systems",
European Journal of Operational Research, V. 139, N. 3, pp. 469-489,
(2002).

31 /30
NOMENCLATURE:

CM = Corrective Maintenance
DL = Down time losses
EI = Employee involvement
FF = Fire Fighting
FMEA = Failure mode effect analysis
FMECA = Failure mode effect criticality analysis
GM = Global Maintenance
GMM = Global maintenance management
HAZOP = Hazard and operability study.
HRP = Human resource plan
JIT = Just in time
KPI = Key performance indicators
MM = Maintenance management
OM = Operational management
OSM = Optimal system maintenance
PD = Planned down time
PdM = Predictive maintenance (condition based)
PM = Preventive maintenance (time based)
PoM = Proactive Maintenance
QL = Quality losses
RBI = Risk based inspection
RCFA = Root cause failure analysis
RCM = Reliability centered maintenance
RCM2 = Reliability centered maintenance 2
ReM = Reactive Maintenance
RTF = Run To Failure
SB = Standby time
SL = Speed losses
TA = Team approach
TPM = Total productive maintenance
TQM = Total quality management
WPS = Work breakdown structure

32 /30