An Agilized Total Productive Maintenance Framework to Reduce Unplanned

Downtime

by Jean W. Pharaon

B.S. in Mechanical Engineering, December 2001,

Florida International University, Miami, FL
M.S.E. in Industrial & Operations Engineering, December 2008,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI

A Praxis submitted to

The Faculty of
The School of Engineering and Applied Science
of The George Washington University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of Doctor of Engineering

January 7, 2022

Praxis directed by

Amir Etemadi
Associate Professor of Engineering and Applied Science

Joseph P. Blackford
Professional Lecturer of Engineering Management and Systems Engineering
The School of Engineering and Applied Science of The George Washington University

certifies that Jean Wadner Pharaon has passed the Final Examination for the degree of

Doctor of Engineering as of January 7, 2022. This is the final and approved form of the

Praxis.

An Agilized Total Productive Maintenance Framework to Reduce Unplanned

Downtime

Jean W. Pharaon

Praxis Research Committee:

Shahryar Sarkani, Adjunct Professor of Engineering Management and Systems

Engineering, Praxis Director

Amir Etemadi, Assistant Professor of Engineering and Applied Science

Joseph P. Blackford, Professional Lecturer of Engineering Management and

Systems Engineering

ii
© Copyright 2022 by Jean W. Pharaon
All rights reserved

iii
 Dedication

The author wishes to first give honor to God for making it possible to even realize

this project and for giving him the strength to complete it through so many adversities.

The author then wishes to dedicate this Praxis to his wife Felicita Pharaon and his

children: Mr. Joel Pharaon, Ms. Gabrielle Pharaon, and Ms. Abigail Pharaon.

iv
 Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank Dr. Shahryar Sarkani, Dr. John Fossaceca, Dr.

Timothy Blackburn, Dr. Amir Etemadi, and Dr. Joseph P. Blackford for their guidance

and their unwavering demand for excellence throughout the learning and development of

this research at The George Washington University.

The author is extremely grateful to Dr. Victor Gray of the Manufacturing Skills

Institute (MSI) for his guidance and for enabling the realization of this study by

connecting the author with a top-tier manufacturer led by an excellent team of

professionals. The author wishes to thank Ms. Susan Deusebio, Ms. Nancy Price, Mr.

Brett Vassey, Mr. Bill Donahue, and many others from the Virginia Economic

Development Partnership (VEDP) and the Virginia Manufacturers Association (VMA)

team who have tried so relentless to connect the author with several manufacturers to

conduct this study.

The author is eternally grateful to the manufacturer featured in this study, its

awesome plant manager, and its team of operations managers, supervisors, mechanics,

and operators for welcoming him to their plant and for going above and beyond to

facilitate the performance of this research.

Finally, the author wishes to thank his wife and three children for hanging in there

with him despite the seemingly perpetual absences from a relatively long military

deployment overseas that was immediately followed by the tortuous journey authoring

this praxis while at the same time working a demanding full-time job and commanding an

Army Reserve Battalion.

v
 Abstract of Praxis

An Agilized Total Productive Maintenance Framework to Reduce Unplanned

Downtime

Unplanned downtime (UPDT) can be very costly to an organization not only in terms

of the tangible costs that are associated with it, but often with the more impactful hidden

costs that are factored in. A 2015 Kimberlite study on the impact of UPDT on the oil and

gas industry published that “just 1% of unplanned downtime—or 3.65 downtime days per

year—can cost organizations $5.037 million each year.” (GE, 2016). With regard to

manufacturing operations, this study investigated the negative effects of a lingering

UPDT issue on the productivity of a manufacturing plant’s packaging line. The possible

root causes were analyzed and they were found to be largely influenced by workforce

performance and inadequate maintenance processes. As a result, a total productive

maintenance (TPM) approach was deemed the most practical long-term solution to the

UPDT problem facing the packaging line under study. To help facilitate the TPM

implementation at the line and to maximize its benefits as a continuous process

improvement lean tool, an agile management approach was adopted. This approach put

an emphasis on Agile team structures operating in an Agile environment to facilitate

workflow and problem-solving through teamwork, cross-functional collaboration,

maintenance efficiency, and customized or targeted on-demand employee training. The

TPM implementation complemented by the agile management approach resulted in the

reduction by at least 20% of the persistently excessive UPDT rate of over 40% at the

packaging line. Consequently, the OEE score of the line improved from an average 40%

to its goal of at least 50%. In essence, the agile management approach enabled the rapid

integration of TPM, which enhanced maintenance procedures and line operation

vi
processes while optimizing workforce performance in a relatively short period of time.

The agilized TPM concept was validated as it helped a manufacturer achieve and

maintain a long-term productivity goal in less time than a stand-alone TPM program.

vii
 Table of Contents

Dedication ......................................................................................................................... iv

Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................... v

Abstract of Praxis ............................................................................................................ vi

List of Figures ................................................................................................................. xiii

List of Tables ................................................................................................................... xv

List of Equations ............................................................................................................ xvi

List of Symbols .............................................................................................................. xvii

List of Acronyms .......................................................................................................... xviii

Glossary of Terms .......................................................................................................... xxi

Chapter 1 — Introduction ................................................................................................... 1

1.1. Background ................................................................................................... 1

1.2. Research Emphasis ....................................................................................... 1

1.3. Problem Details ............................................................................................. 2

1.4. Research Motivation ..................................................................................... 3

1.5. Solution Exploration ..................................................................................... 4

1.6. Problem Statement ........................................................................................ 5

1.7. Thesis Statement ........................................................................................... 6

1.8. Research Objectives ...................................................................................... 6

1.9. Research Questions and Hypotheses ............................................................ 6

1.1.1. Research Question ..................................................................................... 7

1.1.1. Research Hypothesis ................................................................................. 7

1.10. The Scope of this Research ....................................................................... 7

viii
 1.11. Research Limitations ................................................................................. 8

1.12. Organization of the Praxis ......................................................................... 8

Chapter 2 — Literature Review ........................................................................................ 10

2.1. Introduction ................................................................................................. 10

2.2. The Literature Review Strategy .................................................................. 10

2.3. Human Factors versus Machine Factors in Productivity ............................ 11

2.4. Human Factors and the Human-Machine System Concept ........................ 11

2.5. Relevance of Human-Machine System to this Study ................................. 12

2.6. The Literature Review in Context of this Study ......................................... 13

2.7. Unplanned Downtime (UPDT) ................................................................... 14

2.8. UPDT – One of the Six Big Losses ............................................................ 18

2.9. Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE) .................................................... 18

2.9.1. Availability Factor................................................................................... 20

2.9.2. Performance Factor ................................................................................. 21

2.9.3. Quality Factor .......................................................................................... 22

2.10. Overall Labor Effectiveness (OLE) ........................................................ 23

2.11. Total Productive Maintenance (TPM)..................................................... 24

2.12. The TPM Framework .............................................................................. 25

2.12.1. The Focused Improvement Pillar ........................................................ 27

2.12.2. The Education and Training Pillar....................................................... 27

2.12.2.1. Workers’ Skill Identifiers .................................................................... 29

2.12.2.2. Pre-Employment Evaluation (PEE) and Aptitude Testing.................. 30

2.12.2.3. The Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) Test..... 31

ix
 2.12.2.3.1. The Work Behavior Assessment (WBA) ......................................... 33

2.12.2.3.2. The Pre-Manufacturing Technician Level 1 (Pre-MT1) .................. 33

2.12.2.3.3. The Proof of Knowledge (POK) Test .............................................. 34

2.12.2.4. Experience, Proficiency Level, and Knowledge Management ........... 34

2.12.3. The Administration/Office TPM Pillar................................................ 35

2.12.4. The Autonomous Maintenance Pillar .................................................. 36

2.12.5. The Planned Maintenance Pillar .......................................................... 37

2.12.6. The Remaining TPM Pillars ................................................................ 37

2.13. The Agile Manufacturing Framework in Perspective ............................. 38

2.14. The Agile Manufacturing Pillars ............................................................. 40

2.15. The Agile Management Concept as Applicable to the TPM Framework 41

2.16. Summary and Conclusion ....................................................................... 42

Chapter 3 — Methodology ............................................................................................... 44

3.1. Introduction ................................................................................................. 44

3.2. Research Methodology and Design ............................................................ 45

3.3. Location Setting .......................................................................................... 46

3.4. Population and Sample ............................................................................... 47

3.5. Materials/Instrumentation/Apparatus ......................................................... 48

3.5.1. The Line .................................................................................................. 48

3.5.2. The Process at the Line ........................................................................... 49

3.5.3. Machine Downtime Metrics .................................................................... 50

3.5.4. The Agile concepts adapted to TPM ....................................................... 51

3.5.5. The Agile Management and Agile Team Concept .................................. 53

x
 3.5.6. Agilizing the TPM Framework ............................................................... 58

3.6. Data Collection Procedure and Intervention ............................................... 68

3.6.1. Data Gathering and Collection Procedure ............................................... 68

3.6.2. Intervention ............................................................................................. 72

3.7. Data Analysis Procedure ............................................................................. 76

3.8. Ethical Considerations ................................................................................ 77

3.9. Summary ..................................................................................................... 78

Chapter 4 — Results ......................................................................................................... 79

4.1. Introduction ................................................................................................. 79

4.2. Production Impediments’ Analysis of the Line under Study ...................... 80

4.3. The Root Cause Analysis (RCA) Brainstorming of the Line’s UPDT ....... 80

4.4. Illustration of the Line Process Impediments ............................................. 84

4.5. Pareto Analysis of the Line’s Process UPDT Causing Impediments ......... 85

4.6. Process Stability Analysis of the Line ........................................................ 87

4.7. The Line’s Process Impediments’ Reduction Results ................................ 90

4.7.1. Analysis of the UPDT Descriptive Statistics Results.............................. 90

4.8. Testing the Hypothesis (RH) ...................................................................... 92

4.8.1. Mann-Whitney U Test for the First Shift UPDT Improvements ............ 93

4.8.2. Mann-Whitney U Test for the Second Shift UPDT Improvements ........ 94

4.8.3. Mann-Whitney U Test to Compare the First and Second Shift UPDT

Rates After the Intervention Period ...................................................................... 97

4.9. Conclusion from the Results ....................................................................... 98

Chapter 5 — Discussion and Conclusions ........................................................................ 99

xi
 5.1. Discussion ................................................................................................... 99

5.2. Conclusions ............................................................................................... 100

5.3. Contributions to Body of Knowledge ....................................................... 101

5.4. Recommendations for Future Research .................................................... 104

References ....................................................................................................................... 107

Appendix A: Sample Company Invitation Email ........................................................... 120

Appendix B: Study UPDT Data ...................................................................................... 121

Appendix C: WBA and Pre-MT1 Assessment Score Sheet ........................................... 124

Appendix D: Operator/Mechanic Auto-Cartoning Proof of Knowledge (POK) Test .... 125

Appendix E: Root Cause Analysis (RCA) Brainstorming of UPDT .............................. 127

Appendix F: Failure Mode & Effects Analysis (FMEA) – Methods/Processes ............. 128

Appendix G: FMEA – Work Performance & Human Factors ....................................... 129

Appendix H: FMEA – Line Equipment .......................................................................... 130

Appendix I: FMEA – Maintenance................................................................................. 131

Appendix J: Line Process Map ....................................................................................... 132

Appendix K: Agilized TPM Framework ........................................................................ 133

Appendix L: Agilized TPM Use Case Diagram ............................................................. 134

Appendix M: Agilized Focused Improvement (Kaizen) Pillar Activity Diagram .......... 135

Appendix N: Agilized Administration/Office TPM Pillar Activity Diagram ................ 136

Appendix O: Agilized Autonomous Maintenance Pillar Activity Diagram ................... 137

Appendix P: Agilized Planned Maintenance Pillar Activity Diagram ........................... 138

xii
 List of Figures

Figure 2-1. Proportional breakdown of UPDT expenses .................................................. 17

Figure 2-2. The eight pillars of the TPM Framework by JIPM ........................................ 26
Figure 2-3. Comprehensive Structure of the Agile Manufacturing Concept .................... 39
Figure 2-4. Agile Manufacturing Structure ...................................................................... 41
Figure 3-1. Graphical representation of the line (not to scale) ......................................... 50
Figure 3-2. Iteration Concept of the 8-hour Shift Sprint .................................................. 51
Figure 3-3. Illustration of the Daily Sprint-Driven Improvement Goals .......................... 52
Figure 3-4. Current Organizational Structure of Alpha Company’s Plant Under Study .. 54
Figure 3-5. Alpha Company’s Envisioned Agilized Plant Construct (High Level) ......... 54
Figure 3-6. Alpha Company’s Agilized Plant Construct for All Stakeholders................. 55
Figure 3-7. The Spotify Scaling Agile Framework (SAF) Tribe Structure ...................... 55
Figure 3-8. Alpha Company’s Agilized Plant Construct (Working Level) ...................... 56
Figure 3-9. The Agilized TPM Framework ....................................................................... 59
Figure 3-10. The Agilized Focused Improvement (Kaizen) Pillar ................................... 59
Figure 3-11. The Agilized Administration/Office TPM Pillar ......................................... 60
Figure 3-12. The Agilized Autonomous Maintenance Pillar ............................................ 60
Figure 3-13. The Agilized Planned Maintenance Pillar.................................................... 61
Figure 3-14. Agilized TPM Use Case Diagram ................................................................ 62
Figure 3-16. Agilized Administration/Office TPM Pillar Activity Diagram ................... 63
Figure 3-17. Agilized Autonomous Maintenance TPM Pillar Activity Diagram ............. 63
Figure 3-18. Agilized Planned Maintenance Pillar Activity Diagram .............................. 64
Figure 3-19. The Agilized TPM Model Used as the UPDT Reduction Intervention ....... 74
Figure 4-1. Ishikawa (Fishbone) Diagram of Alpha Company’s UPDT .......................... 81
Figure 4-2. The Swim Lane Process Map of the Line ...................................................... 85
Figure 4-3. Pareto Graph of Line’s Process UPDT Causing Impediments ...................... 86
Figure 4-4. Pareto Graph of Line’s Process TPY Reduction Causing Impediments ........ 86
Figure 4-5. Control Chart of the First Shift UPDT Distribution Before Improvement .... 87
Figure 4-6. Control Chart of the First Shift UPDT Distribution After Improvement ....... 88
Figure 4-7. Control Chart of the Second Shift UPDT Distribution Before Improvement 89

xiii
Figure 4-8. Control Chart of the Second Shift UPDT Distribution After Improvement... 89
Figure 4-9. Normality Analysis of the Line’s Combined UPDT Data ............................. 91
Figure 4-10. First Shift UPDT Distribution Before Improvement Implementation ......... 92
Figure 4-11. First Shift UPDT Distribution After Improvement Implementation ........... 92
Figure 4-12. Ranks of the First Shift UPDT by Pre and Post-Improvement
Implementation Period ...................................................................................................... 94
Figure 4-13. Second Shift UPDT Distribution Before Improvement Implementation..... 95
Figure 4-14. Second Shift UPDT Distribution After Improvement Implementation ....... 95
Figure 4-15. Ranks of the Second Shift UPDT by Pre and Post-Improvement
Implementation Period ...................................................................................................... 96
Figure 4-16. Ranks of UPDT by First and Second Shift After the Improvements ........... 97

xiv
 List of Tables

Table 2-1. The six big losses and their corresponding OEE factors ................................. 18
Table 2-2. Relationship between the common OEE and OLE factors ............................. 24
Table 3-1. Alpha Company’s Traditional & Proposed Agile Team Roles ....................... 58
Table 3-2. Data Collection Phase I – Study Preparation & Baseline Data ....................... 68
Table 3-3. Data collection Phase II – Intervention ........................................................... 70
Table 3-4. Data collection Phase III – Post-Intervention and Data Analysis ................... 71
Table 3-5. Expected Pre-and Post-Intervention Status ..................................................... 73
Table 3-6. Description of the Intervention on Machine Operation ................................... 74
Table 3-7. Description of the Intervention on Workforce Performance ........................... 75
Table 4-1. Summary of Performance of Personnel Category RCA Brainstorming .......... 82
Table 4-2. Summary of Asset Utilization Category RCA Brainstorming ........................ 83
Table 4-3. Line Process and its Associated UPDT Influencing Impediments .................. 85
Table 4-4. Two-Tailed Mann-Whitney Test for First Shift UPDT................................... 93
Table 4-5. Two-Tailed Mann-Whitney Test for Second Shift UPDT by Pre and Post-
Improvement Implementation Period ............................................................................... 96
Table 4-6. Two-Tailed Mann-Whitney Test to Compare the 1st & 2nd Shift UPDT ...... 97

xv
 List of Equations

Equation 1: Unplanned Downtime (UPDT) as Variable of the OEE Availability Factor. 14

Equation 2: UPDT Rate .................................................................................................... 14
Equation 3: The Planned Operating Time (POT) Variable .............................................. 15
Equation 4: The Actual Operating Time Variable ............................................................ 15
Equation 5: Total Downtime Metric ................................................................................. 15
Equation 6: Production Rate ............................................................................................. 15
Equation 7: Total Number of Units Produced ................................................................. 15
Equation 8: Total Number of Units NOT Produced.......................................................... 15
Equation 9: Production Goal Attainment Rate ................................................................. 15
Equation 10: Equipment Failure Rate (EFR) .................................................................... 16
Equation 11: Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF)......................................................... 16
Equation 12: Operational Probability P(t) of a Machine as a factor of MTBF................. 16
Equation 13: Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE) .................................................... 19
Equation 14: Actual Operating Time ................................................................................ 20
Equation 15: OEE Availability Factor as a Ratio of Actual/Planned Operating Time ..... 20
Equation 16: OEE Availability Factor as a Function of Available Time & Downtime ... 20
Equation 17: OEE Performance Factor............................................................................. 21
Equation 18: OEE Quality Factor ..................................................................................... 22

xvi
 List of Symbols

α Significance level

σ Upper & lower control limits in control chart (3σ = 3 SD from the mean)

𝑥𝑥 State of the system

𝑦𝑦 Output of the system

𝜆𝜆 Failure rate

p p-value

U U-Test Statistic

xvii
 List of Acronyms

AAR After Action Review

ANOVA Analysis of variance

ASVAB Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery

BPM Business Process Management

CAD Computer-aided Design

CAE Computer-aided Engineering

CAM Computer-aided Manufacturing

DST Decision Support Tool

EFR Equipment Failure Rate

ERP Enterprise Resource Planning

FMEA Failure Mode & Effects Analysis

FR Failure Rate

HFE Human Factors Engineering

HSI Human-System Integration

ICMT Intermediate Continuous Machine Timing

IIoT Industrial Internet of Things

IoT Internet of Things

JIPM Japanese Institute of Plant Maintenance

JIT Just-In-Time

JPM Joint-Service Job Performance Measurement Project

KM Knowledge Management

xviii
KPI Key Performance Indicator

LOE Line of Effort

LCL Lower Control Limit

LSS Lean Six Sigma

MOS Military Occupational Specialty

MRP Material Requirement Planning

MSI Manufacturing Skills Institute

MT1 Manufacturing Technician Level 1

MTBF Mean Time Between Failure

MTTF Mean Time To Failure

MTTR Mean Time To Repair

NAM National Association of Manufacturers

NDA Non-Disclosure Agreement

OEE Overall Equipment Effectiveness

OLE Overall labor Effectiveness

PEE Pre-Employment Evaluation

PM Preventative maintenance

PMCS Preventive Maintenance Checks and Services

PMT1 Pre-Manufacturing Technician Level 1 (Pre-MT1)

POK Proof of Knowledge

POT Planned Operating Time

RCA Root-Cause Analysis

xix
RH Research Hypothesis

ROI Return on Investment

RQ Research Question

SAF Scaling Agile Framework

SMED Single-Minute Exchange of Die

SOP Standard operating procedures

SQDC Safety, Quality, Delivery, and Cost

TFPR Revenue total factor productivity

TPM Total Productive Maintenance

TPY Throughput Yield

TWI Training With Industry

UCL Upper Control Limit

UPDT Unplanned Downtime

VCS Vertical Control Stacker

VOP Voice of the Process

WBA Workplace Behavior Assessment

WPF Workforce Performance Factor

WPG Workforce Performance Gap

WPI Workforce Performance Index

xx
 Glossary of Terms

Activity diagram: This is a visual method which is used to depict the flow of a process
from its starting point to its finish point while also detailing in a stepwise
manner the various activities such as critical decision points within the system.

Agile: A management method that is characterized by a robust emphasis on the

collaborative effort of self-organizing and cross-functional teams and frequent
reassessment and adaptation of plans to evolving conditions or work
environment.

Agilized TPM: A collaboration-based and team-centric approach to personnel and

equipment management which emphasizes flexibility, rapidness, efficiency, zero
defects/zero loss operations, maintenance cooperation (autonomous
maintenance), small group activities, and cleanliness.

Alpha Company: Name given to company featured in this study to preserve its
anonymity in keeping with the non-disclosure agreement (NDA) signed between
the featured company and the researcher.

Best in class: A minimum score attainment of 85% that has been established as an
industry standard for overall equipment effectiveness (OEE).

Cause and effect diagram: A graphical depiction of the root causes of defects and their
effects on a system or process that can be illustrated as fishbone diagrams or
other methods.

Gemba walk: Developed by Toyota’s Taiichi Ohno with the purpose of observing,
understanding, and ultimately improving deficient processes as part of a process
improvement effort, Gemba walks are conducted to give management or
decision-makers better insights on all the intricate parts of a process in order to
facilitate the development and implementation of the appropriate process
optimization solutions.

Hidden losses: These are characterized by wastes in a manufacturing system that are not
typically transparent. They can become costly if allowed to remain unchecked or
undetected.

Information Radiator: In agile project management, information radiator is a concept by

which the flow of information is facilitated to make it more open and
transparent. Some of the tools used as information radiators include but are not
limited to Kanban boards, progress boards, VersionOne digital tracking tool
(http://www.versionone.com/product/agile), etc.

Kanban: Introduced in Japan by Taiichi Ohno, Kanban is a lean method that leverages
visualization as a means to organize workflow. It relies primarily on the concept

xxi
 of just-in-time (JIT) or ‘pull’ system to minimize excesses and maximize
efficiency in a process. In Agile methodology, Kanban is a framework that relies
on WIP using Kanban boards to keep track of tasks in a project.

Kanban Board: Kanban board is a form of agile project management information

radiator which is very suitable for agile teams. Kanban boards are very simple
by nature. They typically consist of a white board with “highly visible” index
cards or “stickies” on it to manage and track the progress of a project one task at
a time.

Lean: A set of productivity enhancing methods and procedures that can be used as
foundational tools upon which to establish a continuous process improvement
program.

Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE): A key performance indicator (KPI) that

is widely used as a metric to measure the productivity efficiency of a
manufacturing plant.

Overall Labor Effectiveness (OLE): OLE is relatively a newly conceptualized

key performance indicator (KPI) which examines the same three factors
of availability, performance, and quality as the OEE KPI does, but is
used as a metric to measure the productivity efficiency of a
manufacturing plant from the perspective of its human workforce as
opposed to its machines.

Progress Board: Just like the Kanban board, the progress board is a way to
communicate the progress of a project, It is an essential tool to
communicate information and track progress of the agile team during
daily stand up meetings and other lengthier team or cross-team
interactions.

Scaling Agile Framework (SAF): Measured, controlled, or customized

application of agile processes in order to better streamline or facilitate the
execution of large scale projects or when executing agile processes in
large organizations.

Throughput Yield (TPY): A key manufacturing performance indicator (KPI)

which measures the output of a process from the perspectives of those
units that are free of defects.

Total Productive Maintenance (TPM): A value-added asset management

approach that focuses not only on maintenance and machine
improvements, but also on building the capabilities of people, processes,
facilities, and equipment to maximize productivity and profits.

Use Case Diagram: Graphical illustration of the step by step proposed or

xxii
intended execution of the activities of a process to ideally achieve a
desired goal. It typically depicts the stakeholders as actors performing
specific roles while being supported by other elements of the depicted
system.

xxiii
 Chapter 1 — Introduction

1.1. Background

Using an agile management approach to complement a total productive

maintenance (TPM) framework, this study primarily sought to reduce unplanned

downtime (UPDT) in a manufacturing plant more effectively. In keeping with a

confidentiality agreement between the company featured in this study and the researcher,

the identity of this organization is referred to as the Alpha Company throughout this

literature.

Founded in the 1800s and headquartered in the eastern region of the United

States, Alpha Company is a top-tier manufacturer in its industry group. It is a leading

manufacturer of many common personal care products such as toothpastes, laundry

detergents, household and industrial disinfectants, packaged food products, to name a

few.

1.2. Research Emphasis

The research emphasis was placed on measuring the impact of TPM-driven

interventions on manufacturing losses such as UPDT and other productivity shortfalls

caused by underperforming equipment in the packaging department of a manufacturer.

To assert its strategic edge over the competition, Alpha Company was very interested in

improving its UPDT rate and other related key performance indicators (KPIs).

Management had identified workforce performance and inadequate maintenance

practices, which resulted in equipment failures, as significant drivers of high unplanned

downtime (UPDT) rates. At the time of this study, which was initiated in mid-October

1
2020, the plant’s equipment failure rate (EFR) averaged 16%, its UPDT average rate was

45%, and its average resulting overall equipment effectiveness (OEE) score was 40%.

Further investigation of UPDT pointed to a number of human, material, and machine

impediments as the primary drivers of stoppages. UPDT events could be characterized as

minor stops caused by simple product jams in equipment. In more severe cases, UPDT

events could be attributed to machine breakdowns caused by misalignments,

misadjustments, or material defects. The stoppages could range from short duration or

minor stops (≤ 1 minute) to longer duration (> 1 minute, but ≤ 30 minutes) to complete

machine breakdowns requiring a few hours or a few days to repair.

1.3. Problem Details

Over the past 12 months or so prior to this study, Alpha Company had invested

extensive capital resources and time in a number of initiatives or interventions undertaken

to improve its workforce performance, its EFR, its UPDT rate, and the resulting OEE

score goals. The plant had implemented various lean manufacturing practices such as the

5S system as well as other continuous process improvement methods such as shop floor

visual controls, SQDC (Safety, Quality, Delivery, and Cost) information boards, tiered

meetings, high-level abnormality boards readily identifying the location of production

issues and countermeasures employed to remedy them, lean steering committees, and

Kaizen exploration. The plant had also dutifully engaged the workforce in various

programs aimed at finding the best solutions to its personnel performance issues.

As of the time of this study, despite all the aforementioned efforts to improve

processes, the organization was still underperforming. In the preliminary stages of this

study’s investigation, it was found that some of the pertinent issues were due to line

2
staffing and line machine maintenance procedures. Optimum workforce or machine

performance was inhibited by a few identified marginal training and maintenance-related

procedures. The COVID-19 pandemic has created a situation of inconsistent line staffing

with experienced and inexperienced operators, high employee turnover rates, and a steep

learning curve for new operator training. Combined, these human factors and constraints

continued to influence high incidences of inconsistent equipment setups and human

errors that contributed to unreliable equipment performances in the plant.

1.4. Research Motivation

Ever since the concept of TPM was introduced in Japan, numerous studies have

been conducted to investigate the various methodologies that can be applied to optimize

manufacturing plants most frequently through the improvement of their OEE. Although

the three OEE components of performance, availability, and quality are all driven in

some form by human factor predictors, the great majority of OEE improvement studies

seldom emphasize the importance of human factors’ influence on this KPI.

The primary motivation that guided this study emanated from the recognition that

a significant number of manufacturing losses that affect OEE, UPDT being one of them,

can be attributed to human elements just as well as they can be attributed to machines,

materials, and other physical assets on the plant floor. In order to fully appreciate the

intricate role of human factors in OEE measurements and ultimate improvement, this

study briefly investigated the applicability of the overall labor effectiveness (OLE) KPI,

which is a relatively new concept. It has only been introduced as recently as 2007 by

Kronos Incorporated, a Human Resources and Workforce Management firm. OLE is a

measure of precisely the same factors as OEE. The difference is that OLE measures

3
availability, performance, and quality from a workforce performance (human) standpoint.

In contrast, OEE measures these factors from an equipment (machine) standpoint.

Inopportunely, with the unavailability of an adequate amount of measured

employee performance data at Alpha Company, the idea was abandoned to directly target

the OLE KPI as an improvement influencer for UPDT and OEE subsequently. Instead, a

hybridized Lean-Agile method was deemed more viable with the TPM (Lean) tool as a

framework complemented by an Agile management approach. This novel agilized TPM

Framework concept has not previously been attempted in a doctoral-level study.

The TPM model was introduced by Japan’s Institute of Plant Maintenance (JIPM)

in 1971. The father of OEE, Seiichi Nakajima, was also the first to describe OEE as a

central component of the TPM methodology in his book TPM tenkai (Nakajima, 1982).

TPM is a potent lean tool that can be leveraged to create the appropriate synergy between

the various functions within a dynamic organization for continuous process improvement.

As the human element is the centerpiece of the synchronized operation within an

organization, TPM is crucial for implementation when human performance improvement

is deemed necessary, as was the case for Alpha Company.

1.5. Solution Exploration

This research concluded that the considerable investment in human resource

development and management stemming from TPM should, in effect, yield some long‐

term benefits for the organization when implemented. This study aimed to establish that

organizations can successfully build an environment and a supportive culture that put a

strong emphasis on their human and organizational aspects. By promoting the effective

4
implementation of TPM principles, this approach can, in turn, reduce or even eliminate

human and machine performance losses.

By establishing the relationship between human performance, EFR, UPDT, OEE,

and other factors through the investigation conducted in this study, the researcher further

sought to pinpoint the predictors of UPDT and OEE with respect to the plant’s workforce

performance. To arrive at the appropriate conclusion, the researcher teamed up with the

plant’s managerial team to conduct a root cause analysis (RCA) brainstorming session to

identify potentially significant predictors. Following these analyses, the researcher

identified potential solutions via a TPM intervention for the manufacturing plant’s UPDT

and OEE KPIs, which were later verified to be efficacious.

1.6. Problem Statement

The Alpha Company’s packaging department averages a 45% unplanned

downtime (UPDT) rate over the past 12 months, impeding productivity goal attainment.

To be considered industry world-class, a manufacturer’s UPDT rate must be at

10% or less (Mueller, 2016). Alpha Company had set a goal to reduce UPDT by 20%.

The expectation is for that reduction to translate into the attainment of its very

conservative goal of 50% target OEE score, which was still below the 60% industry

standard and way below the 85% world-class standard (Esa & Yusof, 2016). Yet, the

OEE at Alpha Company had been persistently underperforming at 40% or less despite a

significant number of interventions undertaken in the past 12 months to improve it. In the

meantime, the plant had been struggling to attain its established production output goals.

During the period May 2020 through December 2020, the company had fallen 5% short

of its projected average throughput yield.

5
 In order to solve this problem and be able to keep up with the demands for its

products, it was essential that Alpha Company achieved its UPDT reduction goals. This

problem thus required a people-centric solution, not just a process-driven solution. A

TPM framework supported by an agile management approach (agilized TPM

Framework) was the appropriate combination of both a people-centric and a process-

driven solution.

1.7. Thesis Statement

An Agilized Total Productive Maintenance (TPM) Framework can be used to

optimize workforce performance and maintenance practices in order to achieve long-

term improved UPDT rates in a continuous process improvement program.

1.8. Research Objectives

This study’s primary aim was to improve the UPDT rate at a personal care

products manufacturing plant. That objective was realized by optimizing workforce

performance and maintenance practices through the implementation of a proven lean

manufacturing technique such as TPM. This approach has created an excellent

opportunity to leverage both a people-centric and a process-driven solution to the

productivity problem of Alpha Company.

1.9. Research Questions and Hypotheses

With the frequency of UPDT events in Alpha Company’s plant and the

persistence of poor OEE, management had found it very difficult to pinpoint the sources

of the shortfalls to acceptable degrees of certainty. Those challenges had led to the

company having had to resort to a number of unsuccessful remedies to attempt to

mitigate the situation. Collaborating with the plant’s management team, the researcher

6
conducted a root cause analysis (RCA) brainstorming session which led to identifying

potentially significant factors related to the plant’s UPDT shortcomings. The following

research question was generated, and the research hypothesis was considered to address

the possible solutions to the plant’s deficiencies.

1.1.1. Research Question

RQ: Do improvements influenced by the agilized TPM framework translate into

decreased UPDT rates at Alpha Company’s packaging department?

1.1.1. Research Hypothesis

RH: Improvements influenced by the agilized TPM framework will result in at

least a 20% reduction in unplanned downtime (UPDT) rate at Alpha

Company’s packaging department.

1.10. The Scope of this Research

The extent of this research study scope did not extend beyond a production line at

Alpha Company that is equipped with dated and semi-autonomous machines that

depended heavily on human operators to execute many of their functions manually.

Therefore, with the heavy human-machine interactions involved in the plant, all human

factors aspects were in the scope of this study. Likewise, all equipment, supply, schedule,

and material variables internal to the plant were considered in scope. On-time delivery

(OTD) rate is a metric that is considered out of scope since the manufacturer in this study

had not expressed OTD as a significant concern at the time of the study. The company’s

financial performance is also out of scope since the manufacturer had not explicitly

expressed its financial health as a concern at the time of the study and since financial data

7
were not made available to the researcher. All financial impact references relative to the

company’s productivity or overall performance were estimated or implied.

1.11. Research Limitations

The study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic period. The resulting

social distancing conditions of the virus had placed some significant constraints and

restrictions on the data collection efforts of this study. Furthermore, this study was

severely limited by the time and logistical constraints of the researcher being unable to

fully be present on the plant’s floor day in and day out. This study was also limited by the

scope of a mostly human-centric system and the challenges it inherently presents for

collecting objective qualitative and quantitative data. More data collection automation

would have counterbalanced or neutralized this set of limitations.

1.12. Organization of the Praxis

This praxis is summarized in a report comprised of five chapters. Each chapter is

further divided into sub-sections intended to describe extensively and seamlessly all the

findings of this research study. The first chapter serves as this introduction. The second

chapter encompasses a literature review of the critical subjects that are fundamental to

this study. Chapter two explores and discusses the central topics of UPDT, OEE, OLE,

TPM, and agile management in manufacturing from the perspective of other relevant

peer-reviewed studies. Chapter three provides all the pertinent details on the methodology

relied upon as the basis for this study’s analysis. Following the detailed explanation of

the methodology in chapter three, the analyses conducted in this research are presented

and the results are summarized in chapter four. Finally, the culmination point of this

report is reached in chapter five, which summarizes comprehensively all the prevalent

8
points discussed in this study. Chapter five essentially ends this report with a conclusion

and a set of recommendations for future studies that are relevant to this one.

9
 Chapter 2 — Literature Review

2.1. Introduction

A substantial number of key performance indicator (KPI) studies have

demonstrated that the application of sound lean manufacturing models could effectively

improve a manufacturer’s unplanned downtime (UPDT) rate. Since many manufacturers

rely upon overall equipment effectiveness (OEE) scores to measure their productivity,

one of the benefits of improved UPDT rates is the enhancement of OEE scores as well as

the scores of other pertinent KPIs.

2.2. The Literature Review Strategy

This chapter assembled and arranged a number of previous studies that are related

to this research. Being that they could theoretically be used as a basis for this research,

they were thoroughly reviewed to extract pertinent information to the problem

investigated in this study. The idea was to acquire enough knowledge and understanding

of topics such as UPDT, OEE, OLE, TPM, Agile management, human factors, human-

machine system, and other topics to assist in more intelligently answering the research

questions and validating the hypotheses of this study. Popular search engines such as

Google, Bing, Yahoo, MSN, and others as well as publication databases such as

Academia, Emerald Insight, Engineering Village (Elsevier), Google Scholar, ProQuest,

Publons (Web of Science), ResearchGate, ScienceDirect, Taylor & Francis, Wiley

Online, and a host of others were extensively utilized.

10
2.3. Human Factors versus Machine Factors in Productivity

While human factors have been recognized as notable drivers of UPDT (Bamber,

et al., 2003) and of OEE (Pillai, Robert, & Rajmohan, 2011), studies that investigate

manufacturing productivity typically analyze UPDT and OEE issues from the perspective

of machine factors as the main drivers of these KPIs. Machines are almost always viewed

as being detrimental to workforce productivity, not the other way around. For instance,

when studying a manufacturing line, that line would typically be analyzed as a system of

machines and often not as a human-machine system.

In notable case studies on UPDT and OEE, Iannone & Nenni (2015) and Muchiri

& Pintelon (2008) assert that machines operating at peak level conditions constitute the

only way to maximize equipment effectiveness. While this notion is valid, it does not

explicitly identify human performance as the ultimate driver of optimum machine

operation although that could be implied. The philosophy of human productivity or

workforce performance as being detrimental to machine downtimes is not widely used

simply because the human element and its factors are frequently not appreciated or are

considered secondary when analyzing machines and the processes that tend to be

designed around them and mostly for them (Bidanda et al., 2005).

2.4. Human Factors and the Human-Machine System Concept

Although some progress has been made since World War II (Perrow, 1983) with

regard to the significance of human factors and the concept of human-machine systems,

in modern times, the human element continues to be neglected or trivialized more than it

deserves to be. The emergence of smart machines and artificial intelligence only works to

further diminish the importance of human influences in human-machine systems. Giving

11
the proper respect or consideration to the impact of human-in-the-loop in machine

operations and analyzing the human element as an integral component of the total

human-machine system is crucial (Lazim et al., 2013). That being the case, the

significance of workforce performance influencers in the overall labor effectiveness

(OLE) as a KPI is visited in this study although not highly emphasized.

2.5. Relevance of Human-Machine System to this Study

In Alpha Company, the personal care products manufacturer investigated in this

study, it has been assessed that workforce performance issues were the primary drivers of

the plant’s current productivity shortfalls along with some maintenance inadequacies. In

framing the persistent UPDT problem experienced by Alpha Company in the packaging

department over the past 12 months, it has been determined that from a human-machine

system perspective, training deficiencies combined with poor work instructions or

procedures have contributed to steep learning curves and human errors characteristic of

the line investigated in this study. Furthermore, poor maintenance prioritization

characterized by inconsistent maintenance schedules could also be blamed as contributing

factors to high equipment failure rates (EFR) (Rivera-Gómez, et al., 2018). Since

equipment failure has been assessed as one of the influencers of the seemingly chronic

UPDT issues experienced by the line under study, EFR is thus considered one of the key

UPDT variables in this study.

In framing the solution to the persistent UPDT problem experienced by Alpha

Company in the packaging department over the past 12 months, the implementation of a

comprehensive TPM program has been proposed as an adequate control measure to

increase productivity and reduce losses (Gram, 2013). Process and machine

12
improvement, preventative maintenance, process quality management, and education and

training are some of the key TPM attributes that were explored as relevant workforce

performance improvement influencers in this study. An agile management approach has

been explored as well as a mean to facilitate a more streamlined and flexible

implementation of TPM within the organization (Soltan & Mostafa, 2014).

2.6. The Literature Review in Context of this Study

The focus of this chapter is to comprehensively review a number of publications

that survey various workforce performance factors and their effects on EFR, UPDT,

OEE, and OLE. TPM is explored in this study as the basis for a proposed continuous

process improvement program to address the workforce performance issues that the

researcher has identified as productivity impediments. TPM has been extensively studied

and most researchers agree that it can be a viable long-term UPDT improvement solution

if applied properly (Jaina, Bhattib, & Singh, 2013). TPM can also be leveraged to

establish a workforce performance baseline whereby workforce performance gaps can be

measured within a manufacturing plant (Díaz-Reza, et al., 2019). Therefore, the literature

review in this chapter also extended to TPM. The focus has not been placed on all eight

of the TPM pillars and the 5S they are built upon, but rather only on the five pillars of

focused improvement (Kaizen), education and training, administration/office TPM,

autonomous maintenance, and planned maintenance which have been deemed relevant

solutions to the problems investigated in this study.

With the publication of the 21st Century Manufacturing Enterprise Strategy, the

phrase Agile manufacturing became widely used (Nagel, 1991). This study’s literature

review explored the employment viability of the agile management concept to

13
complement the TPM Lean tool. People have commonly used the phrase agility

interchangeably with terms like flexible production and lean manufacturing (Santos

Bernardes & Hanna, 2009). Although agile manufacturing is a novel concept, it does not

always imply new methodologies. In recent years, many researchers and practitioners

have been promoting agility or the agile company concept as these new norms that can

quickly adapt to changes at any stage of projects’ life cycle (Nath, Jagadev, & Pattnaik,

2021).

2.7. Unplanned Downtime (UPDT)

The rate and duration of UPDT events are always of great concern to production

managers as the unproductive times created by downtimes result in wastes and

productivity losses (Zennaro et al., 2018). Establishing UPDT prevention measures

through TPM is of the utmost priority for manufacturing plants that value efficiency as

asserted by Bokrantz et al. (2016). As a variable of the OEE factor availability, UPDT

can be computed from the availability equation (Wolniak, 2019; Bartz et al., 2014).

Unplanned Downtime = Planned Operating Time – Actual Operating Time (Eq. 1)

As a sub-factor of OEE, UPDT itself and its rate are influenced by a number of

other variables. Those other UPDT variables are examined in this section. The UPDT rate

per shift can be measured as a percentage of the planned operating time (POT). It can be

calculated by dividing the total UPDT value by the total POT value for a particular shift.

𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 (Eq. 2)

𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 =
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇

To dispel confusions, note that the planned operating time (POT) is not

necessarily the shift time, which is a standardized 8-hour time block typically practiced in

14
the United States. If there is no planned downtime scheduled during the shift, then the

shift time equals the POT.

Planned Operating Time (POT) = Shift Time – Planned Downtime (Eq. 3)

As can be observed, these variables can be used interchangeably to calculate each

other.

Actual Operating Time = Planned Operating Time – Unplanned Downtime (Eq. 4)

Total Downtime = Planned Downtime + Unplanned Downtime (Eq. 5)

Product output is affected by UPDT. This can be a measure of the performance

factor of OEE. Therefore, it is important in this section to consider some of the product

output equations with regard to UPDT or the UPDT factors.

𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 (Eq. 6)

𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 =
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇

Total Number of Units Produced = Production Rate * Planned Operating Time (Eq. 7)

Total Number of Units NOT Produced = Production Rate * Total Downtime (Eq. 8)

𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 (Eq. 9)

𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 =
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇

The failure rate metric, denoted as 𝛌𝛌, is another important metric to consider with

regard to UPDT since equipment failure is one of the primary causing factors of UPDT.

The failure rate (𝛌𝛌) or equipment failure rate (EFR) of a machine during a shift can be

calculated by dividing the duration or total time of failures (T) by the total number of

failures (R) experienced by that machine during that particular shift.

15
 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 (𝑅𝑅) (Eq. 10)
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 (𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸) =
𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 (𝑇𝑇)

The mean time between failures (MTBF) is also a very important machine

performance metric with regard to UPDT. If the failure rate is known, the MTBF can be

calculated as its inverse and vice versa.

1 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 (𝑇𝑇) (Eq. 11)

𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 (𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀) = =
𝜆𝜆 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 (𝑅𝑅)

Also, once the MTBF is known, the operational probability of a machine at any

given time can be calculated using the Reliability Bathtub curve equation:
𝑡𝑡
P(t) = 𝑒𝑒 −𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀

(Eq. 12)
If t = MTBF, then 𝑒𝑒 −1 = 0.3677

UPDT is essentially a measure of loss of time of the planned production activity

due to the occurrence of any unplanned circumstances or events (Kolte & Dabade, 2017).

Some of the most notable events affecting UPDT include unplanned emergency

maintenance or repair, error by operator, defective products, mechanical issues, machine

misadjustments, unavailability of spare parts of the machinery, and lack of supervision

(Zennaro et al., 2018). McDowell (2020) asserts that the top three UPDT-causing factors

are “aging equipment, human error, and reactive repair (vs. proactive maintenance).”

With regard to aging equipment, a 2016 research study found that 50% of manufacturers

are coping with those (Pelliccione, 2016). As for operator error, a 2017 study by Vanson

Bourne global estimates that it is responsible for 23% of UPDT in manufacturing.

UPDT can be very costly for an organization since it implies the waste of useful

resources. A 2013 study conducted by Stratus Technologies found that a typical

16
downtime incident cost manufacturers about $17,000 on average. Yet, another study

estimated that downtime cost the automotive industry a staggering $22,000 per minute on

average (Advanced Technology Services, 2006). Some studies have established methods

to compute the true cost of UPDT. A 2016 General Electric (GE) paper cited a 2015

Kimberlite study on the impact of UPDT on the oil and gas industry that found that “just

1% of unplanned downtime—or 3.65 downtime days per year—can cost organizations

$5.037 million each year.” The report elaborated further to explain that “hidden costs of

lost or deferred production often have the most significant impact on organizations.”

Adapted from the 2015 Kimberlite study on the oil and gas industry, Figure 2.1 illustrates

a proportional breakdown of the expenses that typically result from UPDT.

Figure 2-1. Proportional breakdown of UPDT expenses

Note. Reprinted with permission from The Impact of Digital on Unplanned Downtime:
An Offshore Oil and Gas Perspective (4), by General Electric (GE) Corporation
Copyrighted by GE Corporation, 2016

Although it can be difficult to forecast some of the UPDT causing events,

establishing a sound TPM program can help curb and even eliminate these events. (Kolte

& Dabade, 2017). UPDT has been a serious challenge for Alpha Company over the past

12 months. A recent case study by Martomo & Laksono (2018) featured a company that

was facing some similar UPDT circumstances as those faced by Alpha Company. The

17
application of the proposed TPM-based continuous process improvement approach in this

study has been proven an effective solution.

2.8. UPDT – One of the Six Big Losses

The Japanese Institute of Plant Maintenance (JIPM) identified the Six Big Losses

in manufacturing in 1971 (Nakajima, 1988). They have since been instrumental as a

method to categorize performance, availability, and quality losses in the factory. Since

these are the three overall equipment effectiveness factors, being able to pinpoint the six

big losses offers the opportunity to also address and maximize OEE.

Unplanned downtime (UPDT) is one of the six big losses in manufacturing. It is a

KPI that directly impacts the availability factor of OEE. Adapted from Mwanzaa &

Mbohwaa (2015), Table 2.1 illustrates the six big losses and their corresponding OEE

factors.

Table 2-1. The six big losses and their corresponding OEE factors

2.9. Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE)

Although this study’s primary focus was Alpha Company’s UPDT rate, its OEE

score was also visited since UPDT does impact the availability factor of OEE and minor

stops do impact the performance factor of OEE. Furthermore, Alpha Company had great

18
interest on its OEE score as a gauge of its plant’s productivity health. OEE is a key

performance indicator (KPI) that is widely used in manufacturing as a productivity

measurement of equipment used in a plant. The use of OEE as a KPI was first launched

by Nakajima in his book, Introduction to TPM (1988). OEE is expressed as the actual

productivity ratio as compared to the ideal or optimum productivity (Braglia et al., 2008).

This metric is frequently used for different types of evaluation such as when

organizations implement lean manufacturing, run a maintenance program, and even to

monitor the actual performance of equipment (Braglia et al., 2019).

As illustrated in Table 2.1, under the OEE concept, downtime, speed, and defect

are the three main loss identifiers. These three identifiers are further sub-divided to form

what JIPM has designated as the Six Big Losses in manufacturing. These losses occur

due to failure of equipment, adjustment and setup of equipment, minor stoppages or

idling, line speed reduction, defects in processing, and yield reduction. Nakajima &

Bodek (2016) add that factors such as availability, performance, and quality can be

measured and monitored by organizations to help reduce these six big losses and enhance

the overall organizational value. The three factors of availability, performance, and

quality form the OEE equation as shown here:

𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 = 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ∗ 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 ∗ 𝑄𝑄𝑄𝑄𝑄𝑄𝑄𝑄𝑄𝑄𝑄𝑄𝑄𝑄 (Eq. 13)

For Alpha Company, it is worth noting that with its persistent unplanned

downtime issue, availability is the one OEE factor that is most affected. Alpha Company

also experiences numerous minor stop losses during daily operations that are caused

primarily by short-duration machine jams. These fall into the category of speed loss,

19
which affects the performance factor of OEE. Taking a closer look at the OEE factors, we

consider them each individually in the follow-on sections.

2.9.1. Availability Factor

The availability factor under OEE is defined as the ratio between the time that the

equipment is actually available or operating and the time that the equipment is expected

to be operational (Nakajima, 1988). It is generally accepted that the difference between

the planned and actual operating time is typically due to downtimes resulting from either

planned or unplanned activities. Scheduled maintenance/service and change-over time for

between-production cycle represent some of the known planned activities. Machine

stoppages or breakdowns characterize some of the unplanned downtime incidences.

As also shown in Equation 1, the difference between the planned and the actual

operating time yields UPDT. The difference between available time in general and the

total downtime (planned and unplanned) yields the actual operating time as shown in

Equation 12. This further shows the relationship between UPDT and the availability

factor of OEE.

𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 = 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 − 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 (Eq. 14)

The availability factor equation is then calculated as follows:

𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑔𝑔 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 (Eq. 15)

𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 =
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡

The availability factor can further be defined as follows:

(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 − 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷) (Eq. 16)

𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 =
𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝑒𝑒 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡

20
 The availability factor of OEE is important as it generally gives management a

measure of how much attention and resources should be devoted to maintenance versus

repair activities. Bartz et al. (2014) found that by deploying effective maintenance

systems, management can increase equipment availability, thereby adding to the overall

productivity and performance of the manufacturing process. The study by Bartz et al.

(2014) further emphasizes the importance of product quality, process efficiency, and cost

of operations, as these three variables directly impact equipment availability or

performance as well.

2.9.2. Performance Factor

Nakajima (1988) defines the performance factor of OEE as the ratio between the

planned or expected quantity produced in an ideal cycle time against the actual quality of

the products manufactured. The ideal cycle time represents the best possible production

time. Minor stoppages, reduction in speed, and adjustments result in planned as well as

unplanned downtime. Those are considered the attributing factors that influence

differences between the actual and planned production quantities. The expected/planned

or ideal production is computed by multiplying the total quantity of items produced by

the time of the cycle (ideal). This product is then divided by the production time (actual).

The performance factor equation is as follows:

(𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 ∗ 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑒) (Eq. 17)

𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 =
𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡

The performance factor of OEE is a metric that greatly influences managerial

decisions in the sense that it shows the clear picture of a factory’s output with respect to

its production capacity. Esa and Yusof (2016) assert that both human and hardware

21
performances jointly impact the OEE of a plant. Furthermore, the performance of

physical resources largely depends on the quality of the equipment used.

2.9.3. Quality Factor

The quality factor is a metric that measures the amount of products and parts that

fail to conform to the expected standards of quality (Nakajima, 1988). This metric is

important to determine the proportion of unfit products or defects among the total volume

of products manufactured at a facility. Generally, correcting these defective products

requires reworking so that they meet acceptable quality standards and satisfy customers’

needs. The quality factor is calculated by taking the ratio of all the good quality products

(that meet the pre-determined standard of quality) manufactured and the total output of

products, which also includes the total number of bad counts (i.e., defective products that

do not meet quality standards). The quality factor equation is as follows:

𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔 𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 (Eq. 18)

𝑄𝑄𝑄𝑄𝑄𝑄𝑄𝑄𝑄𝑄𝑄𝑄𝑄𝑄 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 =
𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝

The available literature review on the OEE quality factor assesses that out of the

three factors, quality was the one with arguably the most resounding economic impact

because of its implication on long-term profitability for a company (Hedman,

Subramaniyan, & Almström, 2016). As argued by several authors and most particularly

by Yadav & Sukhwani (2016), an organization’s process improvement efforts internally

is the initiator of customer satisfaction. The more customers are satisfied, the more the

quality of the organization’s products is increased. Toyota is a classic example of this

concept.

22
2.10. Overall Labor Effectiveness (OLE)

Overall labor effectiveness (OLE) is a relatively new KPI that was first introduced

in 2007 by a Human Resources and Workforce Management firm called Kronos

Incorporated (now UKG – Ultimate Kronos Group). In essence, similarly to OEE, OLE is

a metric that is measured with the factors of performance, availability, and quality.

However, unlike the OEE factors that are applicable to machines and equipment, the

OLE factors are applied with respect to the workforce. In other words, OLE is an

extension of the OEE principles to the workforce (Gordon, 2008). For Alpha Company’s

workforce improvement efforts, this KPI presents a great opportunity to effectively

measure its workforce performance and identify the gaps within those performance

measures (Kronos Incorporated, 2010). However, Alpha Company lacked the relevant

availability, performance, and quality data as related to workforce performance. As a

result, using OLE as a viable metric to measure workforce performance for this study

became unfeasible.

In any case, per Gordon (2008, p. 1), OLE is a very effective cause and effect tool

that can help establish a relationship between the workforce factors and profitability.

“OLE has the ability not only to determine workforce performance through availability,

performance, and quality; but it also shows how changes made to improve one area could

negatively impact another.” Perhaps the best benefit of OLE is its ability to show “how

investments in training, root cause insights, and predictive measures with the workforce

can increase profits” (Gordon, 2008, p. 1; Kronos Incorporated, 2010).

Reprinted from a Kronos Incorporated paper (2007), Table 2.2 shows the

relationship between the three measuring factors common to both OEE and OLE.

23
 Table 2-2. Relationship between the common OEE and OLE factors
Note. Reprinted with permission from Overall Labor Effectiveness (OLE):
Achieving a Highly Effective Workforce (4), by Kronos Incorporated
Copyrighted by Kronos Incorporated, 2007

2.11. Total Productive Maintenance (TPM)

Total Productive Maintenance (TPM) is a strategic concept and a set of principles

that enable an organization to effectively maintain its manufacturing plant and equipment

in a way to help maximize productivity and profits (Shagluf, Longstaff, & Fletcher,

2014). TPM is extremely vital for the operation of the machines in a plant, and thus, the

overall performance of a manufacturing organization. As the business environment

becomes more dynamic, the complexity of maintenance functions increases and the

technical and management skills thus become more significant. Löfsten (2000) asserts

that the aim of maintenance management is to reduce the damaging consequences of

machine breakdowns so that the production systems are available in a cost-efficient

manner. The maintenance policy for each machine and complete production line must be

designed in such a way that a thorough evaluation of each machine in the plant is

possible, both individually and holistically. In essence, combining OEE and OLE goals,

TPM is an approach which aims to organize all the assets and the workforce within an

organization, using a top-down approach (Milosavljević & Rall, 2005).

24
2.12. The TPM Framework

To fully appreciate and understand how to best implement TPM as a management

strategy, it is important to study the eight pillars it is built upon. The Japan Institute of

Plant Maintenance (JIPM) conceptualized and developed the eight pillars of TPM. They

are presently known in no particular order as Autonomous Maintenance (Jishu Hozen),

Planned Maintenance, Quality Improvement, Focused Improvement (Kobetsu Kaizen),

Early Equipment Management, Education and Training, Health, Safety, & Environment,

Administration/Office TPM (Chris, 2011). Adapted from Nakajima (1988), Figure 2.2 is

an illustration of these eight pillars. The purpose for their application is three-fold. In

employing them, organizations seek to achieve zero accidents, zero defects, and zero

breakdowns (Ahmed et al., 2005; Ahmed et al., 2010).

TPM as a framework was the focus of this study with emphases being placed

primarily on the training/education and maintenance-focused pillars. TPM practitioners

have found it more beneficial to use a targeted and well-structured approach to the

application of TPM (Kelly & Silvino, 2018). The pillars of Focused Improvement,

Training and Education, Administration/Office TPM, Autonomous Maintenance, and

Planned Maintenance shown in green color in Figure 2.2 are those that were most

applicable in this study. As the aim of this study was to optimize workers’ performance

and improve maintenance procedures, the Focused Improvement, Administration/Office

TPM, Autonomous Maintenance, and Planned Maintenance pillars were agilized for

prime results. This is largely because workforce performance and maintenance process

inefficiencies had been identified as root causes of UPDT.

25
 Figure 2-2. The eight pillars of the TPM Framework by JIPM

Although an abundance of literature could be found on TPM, most of them were

strategic in nature. The number of publications that actually produced in-depth

discussions on a tactical approach to TPM was surprisingly meager, especially the

tactical importance of maintenance (Kelly & Silvino, 2018). Regardless, as a

management strategy for Alpha Company, TPM should readily yield the sought after

results as demonstrated in several prior studies surveyed in this literature review.

The rationale of each of these pillars is to cumulatively reduce categories of losses

at the workplace so that, ultimately, all the losses are completely eliminated. Attaining

such lofty goals may be difficult. However, from a continuous process improvement

perspective, these pillars are designed not just to affect some business processes or

factory works, but also for building and supporting the culture of enduring change within

the industry (Shagluf et al., 2014).

26
 2.12.1. The Focused Improvement Pillar

The Focused Improvement pillar strives for the continuous improvement of the

whole organization so that losses are reduced or eliminated and business processes are

improved. Kaizen is an integral element of the focused improvement pillar. As a Japanese

business philosophy of continuous process improvement, Kaizen establishes some

principles involving all employees as part of its business practice. The objective of

focused improvement is to maximize efficiency and availability of all machines. Chris

(2011) contends that focused improvement is a well-structured approach, which

encourages teamwork, thereby reducing or eliminating process losses. Kaizen puts a

strong emphasis on employee care. It encourages employee engagement and strives on

giving workers a sense of belonging to their organization (Nakamori et al., 2019).

At the time of this study, Alpha Company had already begun to adopt the

application of Kaizen. Although the company had started to see some results, they were

mostly conservative at that point as the organization was at the exploration stage in

Kaizen implementation. In any case, the focused improvement pillar is designed to help

in reducing defects and their associated inaccuracies by allowing teams within the plant

to become more self-sufficient through fostering problem-solving skills (Graupp &

Wrona, 2015). The idea is for the organization to eventually exhibit better team

performance and be more productive (Bartosz, 2016).

2.12.2. The Education and Training Pillar

This is perhaps the most important pillar for Alpha Company to emphasize on in

order to achieve its workforce performance improvement goals. The Education and

Training pillar as well as the maintenance pillars constituted the TPM framework for this

27
study. Training is instrumental at all levels within an organization. As a vital business

tool, training can greatly contribute to a company’s success or the lack of it. As purported

by Garg & Deshmukh (2006), training improves the knowledge and skillsets of workers,

which further helps in enhancing productivity. Training of employees must not only

foster the effective deployment of work productivity, but must also lead to the overall

development of employees.

Some organizations undervalue the importance of training since it is not

necessarily one of their revenue-generating pursuits, at least not directly. Undoubtedly

however, training and education lead to enhanced knowledge and skills of the workforce

which help with future improvements as a form of return on investment (ROI) (Garg &

Deshmukh, 2006). As also demonstrated by a similar study (Schuster, 2011), companies

that value training of their employees and have heavily invested in ensuring that workers

are trained are likely to earn 30% higher return on investment (ROI) than other

companies that don’t prioritize employee training. According to Chris (2011), the

sustainability of the other TPM pillars is not achievable without proper education and

training of the workforce.

For the long-term continuous improvement goal of this study, it is essential that

Alpha Company become a great training organization. What differentiates training

organizations from others is their ability to put emphases on pragmatic and evolving

training programs that target workers’ deficiency areas through evaluation and

observation as opposed to generalized and outdated training regimen loosely

administered to check the boxes (Harward & Taylor, 2014; Mdhlalose, 2020). Training,

education, and testing not only provide the necessary skills to the workforce to drive

28
positive changes and increase productivity, but they also shape the right attitude and

culture so that employees embrace those positive changes (Mdhlalose, 2020).

As an envisioned training organization, Alpha Company’s aim is to institute a

well-elaborated testing and training strategy which is driven by a talent acquisition,

management, and retention program. Such program takes into account the total employee.

In this framework, the total employee concept encompasses the full lifecycle of an

employee with the company from the time that a talent is identified to the time that a

mature employee retires from the organization. Knowledge management (KM) is also

part of the company’s commitment to the program. The total employee program begins

with first identifying the skills and aptitude of prospective employees and it ends with

capturing the knowledge and experience that fully developed employees have

accumulated over the years through a comprehensive KM program. The following are

some of the elements of consideration for a total employee program.

2.12.2.1. Workers’ Skill Identifiers

A significant number of studies have established a strong correlation between the

productivity of a firm and the skills of its workforce (Iranzo, Schivardi, & Tosetti, 2008).

In the context of this study, steep learning curves for new employees and human errors

have been identified as two of a few skill-related factors that have been contributing to

machine operators triggering UPDT events and their associated losses. In a number of

studies that analyzed workforce competencies, researchers have suggested that a

company’s success depends not only on its workforce skillsets, but also on its ability to

effectively harness and cultivate those skillsets (Włodarczyk & Niedzielski, 2016; Baran

& Kłos, 2014). Much of the existing literature that was examined regarding workers’

29
skills and their impact on productivity emphasizes the need for well-tailored, adaptive,

and sustained organizational training programs to achieve ROI and lasting positive results

(Mdhlalose, 2020; Dias & Silva, 2016; Farjad, 2012; Niazi, 2011; Murray & Efendioglu,

2007; Huang, 2001).

For Alpha Company, developing the tools that enable the organization to

accurately identify the proper talents and to effectively employ them is an important part

of making this new process improvement framework deliver the expected results. Talent

management is an essential first step in enabling the organization to attain its established

business improvement goals. Siekmann and Fowler (2017) posit that in today’s rapidly

evolving marketplace, to remain competitive, organizations need to value skills

intelligence and need to be heavily invested in competently integrating and organizing

them. Jason Brown (2020) reinforces Siekmann and Fowler’s argument, but from an

information age perspective.

2.12.2.2. Pre-Employment Evaluation (PEE) and Aptitude Testing

The almost universal standard for employers to hire new personnel is through

surveying candidate employees’ professional resumes and subsequently interviewing

them (Odeku, 2015). For skilled workers who are hired to operate complex machines in a

manufacturing plant, the standard resume review and interview process alone may not be

reliable enough to paint the most accurate picture of a prospective employee’s aptitude

for the job (Krishnaveni & Sripirabaa, 2008). An organization that is meticulous in its

hiring decisions tends to reap the benefits of higher workforce productivity and fewer

incidences of employee turnover (Hedge et al., 2012; König et al., 2010; Robertson &

30
Smith, 2010). These translate into greater return on human resource investments (ROI),

which positively influences the bottom line (Otter, 2012).

Subjecting job applicants to predictive assessments such as pre-employment

evaluations (PEE) and aptitude tests is an effective method for organizations to measure

those applicants’ outlook or fitness for the job (Doughty, 2013). While pre-employment

evaluations are mostly designed to assess the skill levels of prospective candidates,

aptitude tests are specifically designed to gauge their ability to assimilate complex

information or to learn new skills (Davis, Cutt, & Flynn , 2007). In essence, these pre-

employment screening methods enable organizations to benefit from reducing the skill

gaps within its ranks and curbing the learning curve that new employees often have to

experience on the job (Kostman, 2004).

While many companies administer in-house PEE to prospective employees, others

rely on third-party organizations to design and administer the examination. In the case of

Alpha Company, their PEE and aptitude tests are administered by the Manufacturing

Skills Institute (MSI), an organization that specializes in workforce solutions. These

assessments entail talent acquisition, career exploration, career coaching, workforce

development, training, certifications, assessments and testing, and consulting, among

other services. MSI is based in Virginia but has a nationwide footprint in promoting

several programs specifically designed to facilitate collaboration and partnership between

manufacturers, academia, and a skilled workforce.

2.12.2.3. The Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) Test

For aptitude testing, a case in point is the United States military which has been

using the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) test since 1976 as a

31
selection and classification tool after it had first been introduced in 1968 (ASVAB

Working Group, 1980). In a comprehensive review of a considerable number of studies

aimed at scrutinizing the validity of the ASVAB test, Welsh et al. (1990), concluded that

the ASVAB test has been shown to be highly effective in properly placing service

members in their specific military occupational specialties (MOS). Furthermore, the

results have shown correlations between ASVAB test scores and performance in training

and on the job. A relationship could even be established between ASVAB test scores and

attrition rates. Other projects have also been undertaken to validate the efficacy of the

ASVAB. A Joint-Service Job Performance Measurement Project (JPM) mandated by

congress in the late 1970s demonstrated that in the long-term, the ASVAB did predict

performance excellence over the course of service members’ careers (Campbell &

Knapp, 2001).

In a study published in the Annual Review of Neuroscience (Bavelier et al.,

2012), evidence suggests that a person’s focus and patterns-detection ability can be

enhanced with programs such as skill-centric video games, which are designed to train

the brain. These are the same skills that modern specialty-designed aptitude tests

typically assess. Alpha Company could definitely benefit from administering pre-

screening aptitude tests such as the ASVAB or other more modern tests to objectively

address some of its workforce performance issues. By any measure, Alpha Company

does rely on some testing methods of its own to assess its workers’ proficiencies.

Namely, the Work Behavior Assessment (WBA), the Pre-Manufacturing Technician

Level 1 (Pre-MT1) Assessment (Appendix C), and the Operator/Mechanic Auto-

32
Cartoning Proof of Knowledge (POK) test (Appendix D) are currently employed as PEE

and aptitude tests as needed by Alpha Company.

2.12.2.3.1. The Work Behavior Assessment (WBA)

The Work Behavior Assessment (WBA) is a web-based examination that was

created by PSP Metrics of Pittsburgh, PA, and administered by the MSI to measure

“important behaviors necessary for handling work pace and job pressure, along with

work habits conducive to attentiveness to quality and safety requirements. Leadership, as

well as interpersonal and collaborative behaviors, are also compared against

benchmarked results for comparable positions” (Manufacturing Skills Institute (MSI),

2020b). The MSI suggests that this measure can be used to evaluate candidates' ability to

meet a company’s expectations in hourly, management, executive, and professional

positions (Manufacturing Skills Institute (MSI), 2020b).

2.12.2.3.2. The Pre-Manufacturing Technician Level 1 (Pre-MT1)

The Pre-Manufacturing Technician Level 1 (Pre-MT1) Assessment is a

commercial measure created PSP Metrics of Pittsburgh, PA, and administered by the MSI

to measure “individual skills attainment in 12 critical technical skills. The complete

Manufacturing Technician Level 1 (MT1) assessment includes three certificate modules:

Math and Measurement; Spatial Reasoning and Manufacturing Technology; and, Quality

and Business Acumen” (Manufacturing Skills Institute (MSI), 2020a). The Pre-MT1

assessment is designed to assess testers’ readiness to successfully complete the MT1

examination as part of the requirement for this nationally recognized certification

program. The MT1 is endorsed by the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM).

33
 2.12.2.3.3. The Proof of Knowledge (POK) Test

The Operator/Mechanic Auto-Cartoning Proof of Knowledge (POK) was created

internally by Alpha Company to measure operators/mechanics proficiency and retention

of training materials taught. The measure is also used to assess line workers' knowledge

of line and equipment operating procedures. The POK was used within this study to

assess participants’ knowledge before and after the training intervention. The POK test

consists of a combined series of short essays and hands-on demonstration questions. It is

based on Alpha Company’s operator training manual that is provided to each operator

upon hiring. It is graded with a grading sheet for the number of correct versus incorrect

answers. A passing grade consists of a minimum score of 80%.

2.12.2.4. Experience, Proficiency Level, and Knowledge Management

One of the benefits of careful employee selection and employment is retention.

When an organization hires the right caliber of employee and then follows up with

creating a satisfying work environment for that employee and that employee’s team, then

the resulting effect is an organization with a high-retention rate. The most attractive

benefit of low turnover within an organization is the realization of highly skilled

employee pools that are made available for knowledge sharing and long-term high

workforce proficiency levels.

Experienced employees tend to make fewer errors which translates to more

productivity. Also, with their experience levels, employees are better equipped to

recognize issues when they occur and to quickly help resolve them. In fact, experienced

employees greatly contribute in preventing certain issues with their ability to anticipate

them before they are realized. With their tacit knowledge, experienced employees are

34
also invaluable resources to help develop new and junior members within the

organization (Mahjoub & Bach, 2014; Ichijo & Kohlbacher, 2008). Knowledge

management (KM) has been determined as vital to a company’s productivity and growth

(Alyoubi et al., 2018). Per an analysis conducted by International Data Corporation

(IDC), a market watchdog, it is estimated that Fortune 500 companies lose as much as

$31.5 billion annually as a result of poor or non-existent knowledge management

practices. Conversely, it was found that 74% of companies that have established effective

knowledge management programs within their organizations have increased productivity

by 10 to 40% (Babcock, 2004). With an effective retention program and a well-rounded

knowledge management program, Alpha Company can build a strong pool of

experienced employees for long-term solutions to the packaging department’s

productivity issues.

2.12.3. The Administration/Office TPM Pillar

The Administration pillar or Office TPM is an essential pillar, especially with

regard to the agile management concept of the TPM framework. With the implementation

of a standard TPM program as part of a continuous process improvement effort in an

organization, the administration pillar would be functioning as a central node with

command and control capacities of the plant’s operations. After all, the office TPM or

administration pillar is the driver of the manufacturing plant’s administrative functions

(Jain et al., 2012). This is the pillar that manages human capital and physical assets of the

organization. This entails the crucial functions of loss identification, targeting

(Nithiyanandhan & Kumar, 2016), and mitigation (Bhawarkar & Dhamande, 2013). It

oversees scheduling and processes orders as well (Patra, Tripathy, & Choudhary, 2005).

35
 Office TPM interacts with all internal and external stakeholders to include

prospective employees, customers, vendors, Government agents, etc. In essence, this is

the pillar which synchronizes all the financial and logistical aspects of the organization’s

operation (Xiang & Feng, 2021). This is why this pillar is so crucial. In order for the

other seven pillars to function optimally, the administration pillar has to be optimally

executed. It needs to entail maximum participation at all levels of the organization (Jaina,

Bhattib, & Singh, 2013).

The office TPM pillar influences each of the other seven pillars, most particularly

the Focused Improvement pillar as Kaizen gets integrated as an organizational process.

These two pillars could in essence be combined or executed conjointly in order to better

leverage Kaizen and maximize the effectiveness of the continuous process improvement

program being implemented. This is particularly important as the agile management

concept relies heavily on the pillars being interdependent.

2.12.4. The Autonomous Maintenance Pillar

The Autonomous Maintenance TPM pillar aims at enhancing the skills of all

maintenance workers. With customized training, these maintenance personnel are better

equipped to understand the operating environment of the machines around them and the

maintenance requirements to sustain them. They can then work on continuously

improving the machines so that the overall production process can operate almost

flawlessly (Chris, 2011). The aim of this pillar is to make workers, particularly the

machine operators, more proactive and engaged towards the maintenance of the machines

instead of being simply reactive to potential issues.

36
 By embracing this pillar, organizations tend to greatly benefit by averting

problems before they occur. This pillar is based upon the predictive maintenance

principle (Wakjira & Iyengar, 2014), which is a great concept for Alpha Company to

adopt, as it allows skilled workers to continuously sharpen their skills while at the same

time allowing the plant’s equipment to continuously operate optimally. This combination

of efforts results in reduced unplanned downtime and increased productivity and

performance (Shin Min, Ahmad, & Kamaruddi, 2011).

2.12.5. The Planned Maintenance Pillar

Similarly to the Autonomous Maintenance pillar, the Planned Maintenance TPM

pillar is characterized by a proactive maintenance approach that is preventive but not

necessarily predictive in nature. With planned maintenance, the organization establishes

clear maintenance goals to address both anticipated and unexpected repair events.

Preventative maintenance is highly emphasized in this pillar (Jasiulewicz-Kaczmarek,

2016) in order to enhance the reliability of the factory’s machines, its equipment, and the

overall production process (Shagluf, Longstaff, & Fletcher, 2014).

Alpha Company stands to benefit from a comprehensive planned maintenance

strategy that is agilized to better tackle its persistent unplanned downtime problems head

on. The first step would be to evaluate its existing maintenance performance and identify

those areas that could benefit from the improvements that a planned maintenance strategy

could bring along with its cost savings (Chris, 2011).

2.12.6. The Remaining TPM Pillars

Of the remaining TPM pillars, the Quality Improvement pillar could be combined

with the Early Equipment Management pillar and the maintenance pillars to form a

37
comprehensive maintenance program within the organization. Furthermore, with the agile

management approach employed in this study, the Quality Improvement and the Early

Equipment Management pillars together could help yield maximum results. Nevertheless,

the Quality Improvement and the Early Equipment Management pillars did not have

much relevance to the TPM solutions investigated in this study. As for the Safety, Health,

& Environment TPM pillar, it was important with consideration to some human factors

(HF) intervention measures that were needed in this study to improve productivity (Gao

& Low, 2014; Fan & Smith, 2017). Workforce performance was impacted by some

relatively trivial worker environmental factors by most measures; however, they were

still risk factors with productivity and financial impacts on the organization. Namely,

they are the operators’ workstations, the ease of equipment setup, the operating

instructions, including signage on equipment, and workers’ workload. The extensive

literature review revealed that many organizations would choose to combine some

aspects of each of the eight TPM pillars while others would choose to adopt just one, two,

or a combination of any number of the pillars that are best suited for their process

improvement models (Ahmad et al., 2018; Aziz et al., 2013).

2.13. The Agile Manufacturing Framework in Perspective

Agile manufacturing necessitates a paradigm shift in management. The goal is to

build a manufacturing company that is adaptive and flexible enough to produce in large

quantities while also providing variation for different market niches (Wallner et al.,

2021). Agile businesses strive to combine the benefits of time compression with methods

for lowering the cost of variety. Agile manufacturing has evolved over the years. Some

agile manufacturing variants have incorporated the Lean elements in the Agile concept.

38
For instance, Soltan and Mostafa (2015) added waste removal, which is an element of

Lean as illustrated in Figure 2.3. However, the fundamental concepts such as flexibility,

responsiveness, rapidness, and integration are unchanged.

Rapidness ProcessIntegration Reliability

Market Sensitiveness AGILITY Collaboration

Waste Removal Information Flexibility

Figure 2-3. Comprehensive Structure of the Agile Manufacturing Concept

Note. Reprinted with permission from Lean and Agile Performance
Framework for Manufacturing Enterprises, by Soltan and Mostafa (2015)
Copyrighted by Soltan and Mostafa, 2015

The agile manufacturing concept has gotten much easier to implement with the

current advances in information technology, information systems, the Industrial Internet

of Things (IIoT), etc. These technologies have made information integration and

information sharing much easier (Bader, et al., 2019). They enable organizations to take

proactive actions and collaborate more seamlessly. They also facilitate responsive and

rapid decision making in real-time.

39
2.14. The Agile Manufacturing Pillars

Srivastava (2018) has simplified the agile manufacturing concept into four pillars,

namely people, technology, systems, and strategies as illustrated in Figure 2.4. The

people pillar refers to the flexibility of the workforce. It is interested in factors such as

workers’ empowerment, top management support, and other workforce organizational

influencers. The technology pillar refers to the flexibility of the production cells. Aspects

such as the flexibility of fixtures, rapid tools change over, etc. are important. The third

pillar is the system which includes the elements of computer-aided design (CAD),

computer-aided manufacturing (CAM), computer-aided engineering (CAE), enterprise

resource planning (ERP), Intranet, Internet, material requirement planning (MRP),

Kanban, just-in-time (JIT), etc. The fourth and final pillar is interested in strategies such

as concurrent engineering, virtual enterprises, strategic alliances, and physically

distributed manufacturing systems.

With consideration to Srivastava’s agile manufacturing pillar concept in this

study, emphases are placed on the first pillar (people) and some aspects of the third pillar

(system). In agile organizations, administrative and organizational structures are flexible,

yet aggressively create opportunities for growth and profitability as flexibility on its own

cannot deliver agility (Abdelilah, El Korchi, & Balambo, 2018). For agile manufacturing

to be successful, it requires the exchange of information and rapid communication

(Putnik, 2012).

40
 Figure 2-4. Agile Manufacturing Structure
Note. Reprinted with permission from Agile Manufacturing: Concepts and
Evolution, by Srivastava (2018)
Copyrighted by Srivastava, 2018

2.15. The Agile Management Concept as Applicable to the TPM Framework

To be effective, Agile relies heavily on the collaborative efforts of cross-

functional teams that are to some extent self-governing (Loiro, et al., 2019). The

application of agile management to complement the implementation of TPM in a

manufacturing plant is a concept in which elements of Lean and Agile are hybridized to

complement each other in order to maximize their effectiveness (Soltan & Mostafa,

2015). Although 3Back (2020) warns about the “dangers of hybridized agile” processes,

Adel (2020), Udokporo et al. (2020), Collier (2011) along with many other publications

and case studies recognize and validate the effectiveness of the hybridized agile concept

in their studies. Woods (2010) suggests that Lean and Agile are merging and estimates

that firms which employ a hybrid of Lean and Agile methods are likely to get their

products to market 50% faster and are 25% more productive. Nevertheless, with

41
numerous publications surveyed in this literature review, the agile management concept

as employed in this study to complement the implementation of the TPM Lean tool, is a

novel technique not yet attempted specifically. This approach put the emphasis on agile

team structures to facilitate customized or targeted employee training in order to optimize

workforce performance more rapidly. Furthermore, this approach enabled the

synchronized application of enhanced maintenance procedures in order to improve

machine performance in a relatively short period of time. As a result, long-term UPDT

reductions and OEE score increases could be achieved and maintained at a fraction of the

time that it would normally take a TPM program when implemented in a traditional

setting.

2.16. Summary and Conclusion

In summary, the focus of this study has not been placed on all eight of the TPM

pillars and the 5S they are built upon, but rather on only five of them. Focused

Improvement, Training and Education, Administration/Office TPM, Autonomous

Maintenance, and Planned Maintenance constituted the TPM pillars of interest and thus

the modified TPM framework for this study. For the persistent unplanned downtime

problem experienced by Alpha Company, these pillars complemented by an agile

management approach, were deemed a relevant solution. While this literature review has

enlightened the researcher to how extensively the TPM framework has been investigated

as a generally proven solution to productivity problems, including unplanned downtime,

it also revealed that agile management can be a viable solution as well. However, this

approach is still relatively new and is thus largely unexplored. This study sought to

bridge that gap and demonstrate that the TPM framework combined or complimented by

42
an agile management approach, could be a very practical solution to a real-world

unplanned downtime problem.

43
 Chapter 3 — Methodology

3.1. Introduction

The Alpha Company’s packaging department averages 45% unplanned downtime

(UPDT) rate over the past 12 months. As a result, the company consistently

underperforms as illustrated by an OEE score below the productivity target goal of 50%.

Currently, the company has an OEE score that averages 40% even after implementing

several interventions to boost productivity over the past 12 months. Between May 2020

through December 2020, the company has fallen 5% short of its projected average

throughput yield resulting in some revenue losses. An initial assessment by the researcher

at the plant level suggested that human error and overall poor workforce performance

were the primary influencers of UPDT at Alpha Company. Other causal factors were

identified as the current inadequate maintenance practices within the plant. Therefore, the

proposed study’s objective was to implement TPM as a lean manufacturing technique

supported by an agile management approach with the purpose of reducing UPDT and

thereby bolstering OEE scores at Alpha Company.

The following chapter takes a comprehensive approach to describe the research

question and the research hypothesis, the methodology and design, the materials and

instruments for data collection, the line and the process at the line, the study procedures,

the data collection procedure and the data analysis process, and presents ethical

considerations as applicable. The chapter will conclude with a brief summary of the key

points discussed.

44
 3.1.1. Research Question

RQ: Do improvements influenced by the agilized TPM framework translate into

decreased UPDT rates at Alpha Company’s packaging department?

3.1.2. Research Hypothesis

RH: Improvements influenced by the agilized TPM framework will result in at

least 20% reduction in unplanned downtime (UPDT) rate at Alpha Company’s packaging

department.

3.2. Research Methodology and Design

The proposed research study applied a quasi-experimental methodology with a

time series design (Shek & Wu, 2018). The quasi-experimental methodology employs the

use of pre- and post-test measures to evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention. The

proposed study sought to establish the effectiveness of implementing a total productive

maintenance (TPM) program in Alpha Company as compared to the current traditional

manufacturing techniques that were being employed. Therefore, the quasi-experimental

methodology was best suited to answer the research question.

Multiple pre-test measures were gathered before the implementation of the

intervention and multiple post-test measures were gathered after (Shek & Wu, 2018). For

the UPDT measure, multiple time points were collected before and after the intervention.

A discussion of the pre- and post-test measures for the proposed study are discussed

further in the materials and instruments section as well as in the data collection

procedures section.

Further, a causal-comparative design was not appropriate for answering the

research question because this design does not manipulate variables since the “action or

45
event has already occurred” (Brewer & Kubn, 2012, p. 125). However, a correlational

design was found to be suitable for the proposed research study because this type of

design investigates cause and effect relationships and manipulates variables, which were

necessary within this study to establish the cause and effect for the UPDT events in

Alpha Company (Brewer & Kubn, 2012).

3.3. Location Setting

The research setting consisted of Alpha Company, a personal care products

manufacturing company with the featured plant located in the Eastern region of the

United States. The manufacturing company has several plants throughout the U.S. and

abroad. However, for the purposes of this study, only one plant was used in the research

study. The research setting was ideal for selection within the proposed research study

because the environment was conducive for the researcher to be on-site, and the company

was experiencing high levels of UPDT and low OEE scores. These conditions made the

selected manufacturing site an excellent setting to conduct the research project. Prior to

selection of the manufacturing company, several manufacturing companies were sampled

using the internet, yellow pages, company participants from prior research studies, and

other research platforms. These manufacturing companies were contacted over the phone

or by email to determine their level of interest in possibly taking part in the study. Once

self-identified, those that showed interest in potentially partaking in the research study

were sent an invitational e-mail with more details on the proposed study and asked to

contact the researcher again with questions and to set up an interview to further discuss

the project (Appendix A). Once self-identified, the researcher conducted a preliminary

interview with the appropriate contact regarding current productivity issues being

46
exhibited at the company’s manufacturing plant. With the assistance of a third-party

organization, the researcher then identified Alpha Company and was able to obtain their

commitment to participate in the study.

3.4. Population and Sample

The specific sample consisted of a total of nine employees wherein eight held

titles of machine operator, and one was employed as a mechanic. Four operators and the

lone mechanic worked the first shift and the remaining four operators worked on the

second shift. The first shift was the group with which the interventions of this study was

implemented, whereas the second shift was the control group of this study. While the

second shift was fully aware that the study was ongoing, they received no intervention

and continued to conduct business as usual. However, it was possible that the second shift

line could benefit somewhat from the residual effects of the intervention implemented on

the first shift. Furthermore, it is worth noting that historically and prior to this

experiment, the second shift outperformed the first shift in most metrics. Therefore, the

first shift had some ground to gain to be on par with the second shift on productivity.

On each shift, the line was normally manned by three operators plus one more

operator that is on standby to take over each time one of the operators goes on break or is

absent from work. In the experiment, the researcher attempted to have a team of two

operators and one mechanic on some days to see if it made any difference with regard to

how quickly machines get back online when they experienced stoppages. Furthermore, in

keeping with the Focused Improvement (Kaizen), Autonomous Maintenance, and the

Education and Training pillars of the TPM framework, the operators were administered

two tests during phase I (Study Preparation & Baseline Data) of the study to gauge their

47
levels of proficiency. Specifically, the Pre-Manufacturing Technician Level 1 (Pre-MT1)

Assessment (Appendix C), and the Operator/Mechanic Auto-Cartoning Proof of

Knowledge (POK) (Appendix D) test were administered. Throughout the course of the

study, they also received some targeted training on some specific tasks to bolster their

skill and performance levels, more specifically their ability to maintain the machines on

the line and to perform certain minor repair or adjustment jobs on them as required.

The line employees were informed of the ongoing study via internal meetings and

emails by their management and were given the option to participate or not participate.

All employees eagerly accepted to participate in the study because of their expressed

desires to see some improvements within the line. These individuals were recruited into

the study because they worked directly on the line under study in Alpha Company and

affected the UPDT rates for the company. Workers at Alpha Company carried out their

regular work assignments while participating in the proposed study.

3.5. Materials/Instrumentation/Apparatus

Several measures were used within the proposed study and consisted of both pre-

and post-interventional data collection. Specifically, baseline data collection for pre-

interventional data collection consisted of quantitative data or metrics to assess machine

downtime. A data collection spreadsheet with the appropriate machine operation metrics

was used and both before and after interventional data were collected (Appendix B).

3.5.1. The Line

The line under study consisted of five semi-autonomous machines that required

the attention and constant monitoring by the operators as they were fed the product and

the product’s packaging cartons manually. The line had a tendency to experience frequent

48
product jams, most notoriously at the Vertical Control Stackers (VCS) of machine 1 –

Intermediate Continuous Machine Timing (ICMT). The jams typically resulted in short

stoppages or minor stop losses. In more severe cases, the machines experienced

breakdowns which resulted in unplanned downtime.

3.5.2. The Process at the Line

The line is normally manned by three operators. They each oversee an assigned

section of the line, but typically cover for each other as needed. Operator 1 in section 1

primarily feeds machine 1 (ICMT) with the products to be packaged in cartons of three

units each. Operator 1 performs other functions such as retrieving the finished packages

from machine 5 to stack them up on a pallet for shipment. Operator 2 in section 2

primarily feeds machine 2 (Cartoner) the cartons that package the products in units of

three per packets. Operator 3 in section 3 primarily monitors machines 3 and 4 and stacks

flat cases in the case packer magazine of machine 5 to feed it. All operators perform other

functions as needed beside their primary functions. In particular, they all clear jams as

needed and retrieve machine rejected products for reworking or scrapping. Figure 3.1 is a

graphical depiction of the line under study.

49
 Figure 3-1. Graphical representation of the line (not to scale)

3.5.3. Machine Downtime Metrics

Machine downtime data are collected both autonomously and manually. Machine

downtime metrics consist primarily of machine jams or stoppages, which vary in

duration, type, and frequency. The operators usually clear minor jams, but more severe

stoppages typically require interventions by mechanics. The amount of time it takes for

mechanics to respond to stoppages is also factored in the machine downtime metrics and

so does the amount of time it takes mechanics to make machines operational again. To

record machine downtime, various machine sensors send signals to a centralized

computer which records stoppages as they occur. The data recorded autonomously

include the type of stoppages, their duration, their frequency, and the machine component

affected. Operators and mechanics use scanned barcodes or manually filled out forms to

record certain types of downtime data, more specifically, planned and certain unplanned

50
types, when they last 45 seconds or more. Machine downtime data are all compiled on a

Microsoft Excel spreadsheet (Appendix B) for review by management.

3.5.4. The Agile concepts adapted to TPM

Iteration, workflow management, and cross-functional collaboration were the

three major concepts from agile that were adapted to TPM to construct the agilized TPM

framework of this study. The iteration concept envisioned the line operating with

increased attention to the voice of the process (VOP) meaning that the line was no longer

bound to stringent processes that limited or restricted necessary changes as situations

evolved. Furthermore, the line operated following daily sprint-driven improvement goals.

Unlike a typical 2-4 week sprint, the 8-hour shift was considered a sprint with specific

UPDT reduction goals. Figures 3.2 and 3.3 illustrate the iteration concept of the shift.

Figure 3-2. Iteration Concept of the 8-hour Shift Sprint

With regard to workflow management, an organizational transformation was

proposed to shift from a strictly top-down hierarchy to a multi-pronged settings, which

allowed for expanded roles of all stakeholders. Figures 3.7 and 3.8 illustrate that

transformation. From the plant’s management team, the support staff, the operators, and

the mechanics, an agile environment was emulated with the expanded roles allowing for

more flexibility in duty performance. Furthermore, a decentralized leadership format was

introduced. It was designed to exert more leadership presence, but less interference. As

51
leadership became more adaptive, more opportunities were created for team-level

brainstorming and problem solving. Finally, some revamped maintenance support and

procedures were introduced to make the process more predictive than preventive.

Mechanics were no longer centralized, but became more dedicated to machines. More

responsibility was delegated to the operators to maintain the machines and make

adjustments as necessary.

The introduction of cross-functional team collaboration helped increase TPM’s

effectiveness. By limiting or eliminating silos within the organization, a more cross-team

inter-dependent environment was created. Implementing an active knowledge

management (KM) process and encouraging mentoring across the organization helped

increase knowledge sharing. Shifting from prescriptive to an on-demand and tailored

training regimen and increasing collaboration between operators and mechanics helped

improve machine maintenance quality and workforce performance across the board.

Figure 3-3. Illustration of the Daily Sprint-Driven Improvement Goals

52
 3.5.5. The Agile Management and Agile Team Concept

With regard to the application of agile management principles in this study, a

scaling agile framework (SAF) was explored to drive the proposed organizational

structure change at the manufacturing plant of the company featured in this study.

Although the scope of this study is limited to a single line of the Alpha Company’s

packaging department, the agilized TPM framework concept envisions the expansion of

these principles as possibilities. Therefore, Figures 3.4 – 3.8 represent the snapshots of

Alpha Company’s current organizational structure as compared to the envisioned agile

structure if adopted in the future. Figure 3.7 is a graphical depiction of the Tribe structure

within Spotify.

The scaling agile framework (SAF) considered is the one used by a company

called Spotify (Kniberg & Ivarsson, 2012). Spotify is currently one of the leading online

music streaming companies. That company has developed a form of SAF based

somewhat on a military basic unit construct. In this regard, the basic unit of development

is called a Squad. At Spotify, a squad is what is commonly referred to in agile

applications as a scrum team. Furthermore at Spotify, four or more squads make up a

Tribe. Within the tribe, there is a cross-squad collaboration team of four or more that is

made up of one member from each squad. This team is called a Chapter. Then, there are

selected members within two or more tribes that make up what is called the Guild.

53
Figure 3-4. Current Organizational Structure of Alpha Company’s Plant Under
Study

Figure 3-5. Alpha Company’s Envisioned Agilized Plant Construct (High Level)

54
 Figure 3-6. Alpha Company’s Agilized Plant Construct for All Stakeholders

Figure 3-7. The Spotify Scaling Agile Framework (SAF) Tribe Structure
Note. Reprinted with permission from Scaling Agile @ Spotify: with Tribes, Squads, Chapters &
Guilds, by Henrik Kniberg & Anders Ivarsson
Copyrighted by Spotify Inc., 2012

55
 Figure 3-8. Alpha Company’s Agilized Plant Construct (Working Level)

As noted, a Squad share a lot of similarities with a Scrum team. At Spotify, it is

conceptually treated as a mini-startup (Kniberg & Ivarsson, 2012). Team members share

workspaces. Internally, they have assembled all the tools and skills required or needed to

apply the Agile principles. They are mostly autonomous and self-organizing. Some teams

use Scrum sprints, others use Kanban, and yet others use hybrid versions of the various

agile methods (Kniberg & Ivarsson, 2012). Furthermore, like Scrum teams, squads are

cross-functional.

At Spotify, a formal squad leader is not appointed to the team. Instead, there are

product owners that take turn with each project (Kniberg & Ivarsson, 2012). Agile

coaches are made available to assist the squads in various aspects of the agile concept

application. The coaches help the squad teams improve and evolve their processes.

Coaches are also responsible for helping with identification of impediments and their

56
removal through coaching (1 on 1 if needed), mentoring, and recommending or

administering the tailored or customized training. This practice helps the squads to

continuously improve their processes. The coaches also run sprint planning meetings,

retrospectives, and a number of other tasks (Kniberg & Ivarsson, 2012).

At Spotify, the tribe is considered the Launchpad for the squad mini-­startups

(Kniberg & Ivarsson, 2012). Tribes are mostly autonomous and cross-functional by

nature. Unlike the squads, tribes do have appointed tribe leaders who are responsible for

the synchronization as well as the operational and logistical support of the squads within

their tribes. The squads within a tribe are typically collocated or are located within reach

of each other in order to promote collaboration, teamwork, and problem solving. One of

the principles at Spotify is to limit groups to the smallest sizes possible because larger

groups tend to entice bureaucracy, managerial extra layers, restrictive rules, constraints,

politics, and other wastes. Therefore, at Spotify, tribes are designed to be relatively small,

ideally smaller than 100 people or so (Kniberg & Ivarsson, 2012).

All in all, the Spotify model is a people-driven and autonomous approach for

scaling agile that emphasizes the importance of culture and network. It has helped Spotify

and other organizations increase innovation and productivity by focusing on autonomy,

communication, problem-solving, accountability, quality, adaptability, flexibility, and

speed. Table 3.1 describes and compares the envisioned various roles at Alpha Company

from their traditional and agile structure perspectives.

57
 Table 3-1. Alpha Company’s Traditional & Proposed Agile Team Roles

3.5.6. Agilizing the TPM Framework

This study relied upon a TPM model as the intervention measure to drive the

reduction of UPDT in Alpha Company. The TPM framework is a series of individual

processes that can be combined together or customized to the need of TPM practitioners.

With the availability of this flexibility, the TPM framework was agilized for optimum

effectiveness. As discussed in chapter 2, agile management can be adapted to a variety of

processes as a novel concept to solve problems in the most efficient or the most cost

effective way.

Figures 3.9 – 3.13 depict the individual agilized pillars of the TPM framework. Of

the five pillars adopted to help reduce UPDT in Alpha Company, the four pillars of

Focused Improvement (Kaizen), Administration/Office TPM, Autonomous Maintenance,

and Planned Maintenance have been determined the most suitable pillars that can be

complimented with agile management techniques to optimize their effectiveness.

58
 Figure 3-9. The Agilized TPM Framework

Figure 3-10. The Agilized Focused Improvement (Kaizen) Pillar

59
Figure 3-11. The Agilized Administration/Office TPM Pillar

Figure 3-12. The Agilized Autonomous Maintenance Pillar

60
 Figure 3-13. The Agilized Planned Maintenance Pillar

Unlike the Spotify squad teams, the Alpha Company line under study is obviously

not a product developing unit. However, some of the same agile principles applied at

Spotify were also employed or at least experimented with in this study. With regard to the

agilized TPM framework concept explored in this study, it came down to transforming

the line under study into an agile team or squad and using that line’s normal supporting

apparatus in such a manner as to emulate the process by which a systematically agilized

plant would be expected to operate or collaborate. To help frame the agile management

concept within the construct of the TPM framework, the researcher has developed a

general use case diagram for the line’s agile management process and a series of activity

diagrams representing each one of the four agilized TPM Pillars. Each activity diagram

characterizes a road map to guide the line’s squad on how to organize a typical work day

at the line within the established agile principles. In particular, an activity diagram

illustrates a typical sprint iteration of a shift. The use case diagram is depicted in Figure

61
3.14 and appendix L (for clarity). Figures 3.15 – 3.18 portray the activity diagrams that

illustrate the typical daily tasks of the shift under study. In essence, these activity

diagrams characterize the execution of the three major agile concepts adapted to this

study. Those were discussed in section 3.5.4.

Figure 3-14. Agilized TPM Use Case Diagram

Figure 3 15. Agilized Focused Improvement (Kaizen) Pillar Activity Diagram

62
 Figure 3-15. Agilized Administration/Office TPM Pillar Activity Diagram

Figure 3-16. Agilized Autonomous Maintenance TPM Pillar Activity Diagram

63
 Figure 3-17. Agilized Planned Maintenance Pillar Activity Diagram

The following constitutes some of the details on what the use case and the activity

diagrams entail and what their main focuses are as each pillar is agilized:

1. Daily internal squad 15-minute stand up meetings

2. Bi-weekly short cross-functional team sprint meetings to briefly discuss

accomplishments or progress, share experiences, and register new challenges

to tackle next. These last no more than 30 minutes.

3. Weekly brainstorming sessions typically at the beginning of the week to

game-plan reduction of jams & other stoppages. These last no more than 30

minutes.

4. Agile communication tools such as information radiators placed in common

areas and Kanban boards as well as progress boards established in the line's

proximity to set up priorities, synchronize, track, and record various recurring

or emerging tasks.

64
5. Designated office TPM Guild team members record Kanban and progress

board notes as well as meeting minutes identified as critical or important in

order to capture lessons learned and for knowledge management (KM)

purposes.

6. On-demand or Just-in-Time (JIT) team training (Pandey, 2020) for on-the-

spot correction when errors are detected or to address deficiencies as soon as

they are identified.

7. Enhanced maintenance scheduling based on the amount of attention needed

per line. Instead of roaming mechanics being reactive and attending to all

machines at random when called upon when breakdowns or malfunctions

occur, mechanics are now assigned or are on-call primarily to specific

machines based on those machines’ malfunction history. In essence, the

number of machines assigned per mechanics is now more condition-based

rather than being situation-based or random.

8. Enhanced work order submission and response process. In order to reduce

response time, line now has direct access to mechanics as opposed to the

previous process requiring them to use the shift supervisor as intermediary to

submit work orders or to request assistance from technicians.

9. Daily preventive maintenance checks & services (PMCS) performed primarily

by operators with assistance from mechanics as needed. This is performed

ideally twice during the shift.

10. Daily machine inspections and advanced adjustments made by mechanics.

These machine inspections and adjustments should be conducted at least once

65
 every hour. Mechanics should conduct maintenance training to operators at

least once weekly. Mechanics typically belong to a Chapter agile team.

11. Continuous machine adjustments at least once every hour to help reduce jams.

This can be done in conjunction with or to supplement the PMCS tasks. This

is conducted primarily by operators whom take turns to perform this task.

Mechanics are available to assist as needed.

12. Weekly cross-functional team training sessions. These can be held more

frequently when a persistent problem has been identified with multiple

squads. The Agile Coach is responsible to coordinate or administer the cross-

functional team training sessions. However, any team can individually or

collectively lead the way in organizing those types of training events. All

training events have to be customized for short durations and to maximize the

use of hands-on, interactivity, or practical exercises. Lengthy classroom

training sessions using PowerPoint slides are highly discouraged.

13. Daily After-Action-Reviews (AARs) are conducted. These sprint meetings are

designed to go over what went right and what went wrong in the execution of

the team's project throughout the day. The aim is to continuously find ways to

improve upon the manner in which tasks are executed. Of particular interest or

importance are tasks that are time wasters and those items that are considered

impediments. They are identified and mitigating solutions are developed in

the AARs or other follow-on sprint meetings. This is considered the final

sprint meeting for the day. It is conducted at the end of the shift. It is kept to

66
 15 minutes or less. The AAR items of discussion are populated on the

progress board by any team member throughout the day.

The following constitutes the expected impact or some of the expected benefits

from the agilization of the TPM pillars:

1. Reduced frequency and duration of machine jams or stoppages which translate

into reduced UPDT.

2. More efficient maintenance procedures which translate into reduced machine

breakdowns and reduced UPDT.

3. Reduced response time by mechanics when breakdowns or malfunctions

occur. This also translates into reduced UPDT.

4. Better information flow

5. More streamlined and easier-to-follow processes

6. Better machine data collection

7. Improved team dynamics and involvement at all levels

8. More productive collaboration

9. More management engagement

10. Faster and better leadership decision making

11. Better trained workers

12. Increase in organization morale and job satisfaction

13. Time savings

14. Drastic waste reductions and increased productivity

15. Money savings

67
3.6. Data Collection Procedure and Intervention

3.6.1. Data Gathering and Collection Procedure

The data gathering and collection plan and timeline are described in Tables 3.2 –

3.4. Specifically, the study expected to take five to six months. The study was divided

into three periods or phases (the study preparation and baseline data collection phase, the

intervention data collection phase, and the post-intervention and data analysis phase).

There was a total of nine participants, including the control group. The participants

completed some short training sessions at various points during the experiment in

keeping with the Focused Improvement (Kaizen), the Education & Training, and the

Autonomous Maintenance pillars of the TPM framework. The training consisted of a

series of 15-minute to maximum 1-hour customized and on-demand training sessions

conducted within the first shift to emulate some of the activities of small-size agile teams.

The training sessions were first shift team-driven and not necessarily management-driven

or directed. The training sessions consisted of either hands-on, walk-through, or

computer-based modules with some of which employing the gamification approach.

Table 3-2. Data Collection Phase I – Study Preparation & Baseline Data

68
 The agile team structure was organized during the baseline data collection period.

In keeping with the Planned Maintenance pillar of the TPM framework, some of the

maintenance team’s standard operating procedures (SOP) were revised during the

baseline data collection period. The revised SOP included more cross-functional training

and collaboration, a more structured maintenance plan, and a more regimented

maintenance schedule. The customized and on-demand training was ongoing during the

intervention data collection period.

69
 Table 3-3. Data collection Phase II – Intervention

Time Period Event Description

11 Jan 21–26 Mar 21 Intervention Quantitative data collected over the course of
Data 11 weeks within the constructs of a TPM
Collection framework controlled environment. First shift
workers operate under new or modified
processes and procedures driven by various
agilized TPM-based interventions designed
specifically for this study. While there are
some overarching guidance to follow, as
members of a Squad, First shift workers
understand at this point that they are an agile
team that enjoys some level of autonomy in
problem solving and decision making.
Besides meeting their target production for
the day, their other goal is to reduce the
number of machine stoppages by the target
number established by their Agile Coach in
their first sprint meeting at the beginning of
the shift.
Training Squad team members are self-administer or
are administered a variety of on-demand
hands-on, walk-through, traditional
classroom, and computer-based training at
various times throughout this 11-week period
by their Agile Coach or by MSI, a third-party
company.
Enhanced Per the new agile principles that have been
Maintenance established, cross-functional teams made up
Management of operators, mechanics, and others are active.
Machine adjustments are prescribed during
sprint meetings and are continuous.
Maintenance tasks are also continuous or on-
demand as situation dictates. Some condition-
based maintenance procedures are in effect
and are supported by a maintenance decision
support tool which is proposed to cross-
functional agile team leaders to help them
make the appropriate decisions about
maintenance and management of machines
(before, during, and after an UPDT event).
Decision tool to focus on decision making for
improved machine functioning, scheduling of
preventative maintenance, and maintenance
priority decisions.

The line is normally set up to run at pre-determined speeds to meet production

goals. During the study period, the line was set up to produce 250 cartons per minute

70
(CPM). However, this goal was not always attainable with the occurrence of frequent

product jams or machine stoppages and breakdowns which resulted in unplanned

downtime.

Table 3-4. Data collection Phase III – Post-Intervention and Data Analysis

The need to improve some of the maintenance procedures was evident at the line.

The frequency of the jams could be controlled with the line being properly adjusted. The

duration of the jams and their severity could be controlled as well with the proper

procedures put in place to govern the mechanics’ availability or response time when

needed. The frequency of the adjustments and the methods used to perform the

adjustments were monitored closely throughout the day. In keeping with the

Administration/Office TPM pillar of the TPM framework, a decision support tool was

recommended to assist in making the necessary adjustments of the line depending on the

71
frequency of the jams as they occur. The recommended maximum acceptable jam

frequency for this study was 1 jam/min. Furthermore, the decision support tool would

also assist in preventive maintenance measures and schedule decisions.

3.6.2. Intervention

The current process entails operators continuously feeding semi-autonomous

machines with the products to be packaged and the cartons that package them. Employees

have to monitor the machines for jams and other stoppages and ensure that they don’t run

out of products, cartons, or glue. Employees perform other tasks such as sorting

packages, sorting products rejected by machines for reworks or scraps, clearing jams

when they occur, adjust the machines as needed, move product or carton boxes in and out

of the line, and scanning various barcodes used to help record machine data. The data

collection process is highly subject to irregularities, omissions, and human errors,

especially during high-tempo periods. The line is also highly susceptible to machine

misadjustments by operators due to lack of proper training, lack of proper supervision or

guidance, absence of proper machine adjustment instruments or instructions, and simply

because some machine adjustment tasks are too technical or complex for non-

maintenance trained operators to perform. Machine misadjustment is one of the major

drivers of machine jams or stoppages. The implementation of a comprehensive Agilized

Autonomous Maintenance process could help control this undesirable state of the line

process and reduce UPDT. Table 3.5 illustrates the expected pre-and post-intervention

status at the line.

72
 Table 3-5. Expected Pre-and Post-Intervention Status
Pre-Intervention
- High incidence of machine stoppages
(minor stops and unplanned downtime)
- Inferior data collection methods at the
line
- Improper machine settings or
adjustments
- Record of human errors or mistakes at
the line
73
Intervention
- Enhanced maintenance
management program through an
agilized TPM Framework
- Modified line staffing with mixed
team of highly-trained operators
and on-demand mechanics at the
line
- Customized and on-demand
Mechanic & Operator training
through agilized TPM Framework
- More cross-functional team
collaboration as per agile
management principles
- Improved machine data collection
methods through automation
- Improved machine data collection
awareness through training
- Installation of operator assistance
mechanisms such as visual and/or
audio cues
- Modified line staffing with mixed
team of highly-trained operators
and on-demand mechanics at the
line
- Customized and on-demand
Mechanic & Operator training
through agilized TPM Framework
- More cross-functional team
collaboration in keeping with agile
management principles. This
includes more brainstorming and
problem solving sessions between
operators and mechanics.
- Operators are empowered to
perform more diagnosis,
maintenance, and minor repair
tasks on machines
- Customized and on-demand
Mechanic & Operator training
through agilized TPM Framework
- Improved signage on machines and
workstations
 Figure 3.19 illustrates the new model that governs the agilized TPM framework

upon which the proposed improvements of this study are based. Tables 3.6 and 3.7

illustrate the measures that were implemented to achieve the targeted improvements.

Figure 3-18. The Agilized TPM Model Used as the UPDT Reduction Intervention

Table 3-6. Description of the Intervention on Machine Operation

74
 Table 3-7. Description of the Intervention on Workforce Performance

Aim Improvement Practice

Workforce Continuous Kaizen Emphasize quality, teamwork, & the
Performance implementation cross-functional team concept to
Optimization promulgate the agilized Focused
Improvement concept of the agilized TPM
Framework’s continuous process
improvement program
Mixed Introduce more cross-functional team
operator/mechanic collaboration as per agile management
team line principles. Mechanics are on-demand and
mostly present at the line to reduce
response and repair times and also to
reduce frequency of stoppages through
continuous machine adjustments as
appropriate
Customized Continuous on-demand training and
training for periodic testing (WBA, POK, Pre-MT1)
Mechanics & to assess proficiency. Maintain or increase
Operators frequency of customized & on-demand
training to address specific deficiencies
when identified. More joint operator-
mechanic training sessions. More
maintenance and minor repair-oriented
training sessions to operators
Human factors Make workstations more productive
engineering (HFE) through improved signage and clearer
enhancements on instructions. Install operator assistance
workstations mechanism such as visual and audio cues
Agilize TPM Adopt cross-functional agile team concept
to help facilitate rapid and flexible TPM
implementation and to make it more
effective

The interventions from the TPM-based continuous process improvement program

entailed the following: (a) improvement of machines’ operation through an enhanced

maintenance program and (b) workforce performance optimization through customized

training and the implementation of enhanced team organizations. These improvements

were expected to: (a) reduce high incidences of machine stoppages, (b) improve data

75
collection methods on the line, (c) execute proper machine settings, (d) reduce human

errors, and ultimately (e) increase productivity on the line.

3.7. Data Analysis Procedure

The production activities in Alpha Company’s manufacturing facility will be

observed and its processes will be investigated. Data will be synthesized and analyzed

first using t-tests to answer the research question and test the hypothesis of this study.

Applications such as Microsoft Excel and Minitab will be explored.

To examine the research question (RQ), which is to assess whether the TPM

framework intervention impacted UPDT, the appropriate statistical analyses will be

conducted on the UPDT data collected during the periods before and after the

improvements have been implemented. A two sample t-test will be performed initially.

However, due to the non-normal tendencies of the data, a Mann-Whitney U-test will be

considered as well being that it is the two sample t-test’s non-parametric equivalent and is

the suitable comparison method for differences between same population samples having

an ordinal or continuous dependent variable (Conover & Iman, 1981). A normality test

will first be conducted to confirm the necessity for the Mann-Whitney approach.

The analysis approach is as follows:

a. Compare the First Shift’s UPDT data collected for before and after the

improvements were implemented. The purpose of this analysis is to

demonstrate that improvements did occur after the Agilized TPM method was

deployed.

b. Compare the Second Shift’s UPDT data collected for before and after the

improvements were implemented. The second shift will be the control group

76
 and since no improvements were implemented to this shift, then there should

not be a statistically significant improvement noted in the time frame of

improvements to first shift.

c. Compare both the First Shift and the Second Shift’s UPDT data collected for

after the improvements were implemented. The purpose of this analysis is to

further demonstrate that there was a better performance on first shift than

second shift, providing evidence that the improvements were not from another

causal effect.

In order to determine whether or not there are significant differences on the

UPDT with respect to the implemented improvements, a significance level of 0.05 will be

used.

3.8. Ethical Considerations

There were no known either physical or psychological risks to volunteers

interested in participating in the proposed study. Participants’ privacy and anonymity

were protected throughout the study. Since participation was voluntary, participants were

not given any monetary reward other than their normal salaries for taking part in the

study. Alpha Company collected all the machine data and they were then passed on to the

researcher for analysis. There were no identifying information collected from the

participants and there were no existing identifying information on participants provided

to the researcher as part of this study. Therefore, participants' anonymity was maintained

throughout the study. A laptop computer that requires user login credentials for access

was used to store and analyze data throughout the course of the study. The researcher was

the only one with access to the laptop computer, and no other information has been stored

77
in the folder which contained the data. All non-essential data will be electronically wiped

upon completion of the study.

3.9. Summary

In this chapter, all the pertinent details were presented on the methodology and

design for the proposed research project. That included an overview of the research

question and the hypothesis. A quasi-experimental methodology was proposed to answer

the research question and validate the hypothesis that it will be possible to determine the

effects of the agilized TPM intervention on UPDT over time. The location setting,

population, and intended sample were also described along with the materials that were

used to collect the data. Finally, the data collection procedure and analysis were

discussed in detail along with any ethical considerations if needed. The results of this

study will be presented in chapter 4 and a discussion of the research findings and the

ensuing recommendations will follow in Chapter 5.

78
 Chapter 4 — Results

4.1. Introduction

The results of the data analyses conducted for this study are presented in this

chapter. Essentially, this chapter evaluated the problem identified and defined in this

study, the research question posed to arrive at a solution to the problem, the hypothesis

claims generated to attempt to answer the research question, and the actual solution

implemented in order to validate the hypothesis.

Before the hypothesis tests results of this study are presented in this chapter, the

findings of a root cause analysis (RCA) brainstorming exercise are discussed to partially

delineate the process which was employed to develop a solution to Alpha Company’s

unplanned downtime (UPDT) problem. The RCA results are followed by the descriptive

statistics of the unplanned downtime (UPDT) rates of this study’s featured manufacturing

plant line. These results reflect the state of the line’s first and second shifts before any

improvements were implemented to address the high UPDT rate problem that Alpha

Company was experiencing. The post-improvement implementation descriptive statistics

of the UPDT for both shifts are presented and analyzed as well.

These summary statistics are followed by some statistical tests which were

performed specifically to answer the research question (RQ). Mann-Whitney two-sample

rank-sum tests (Mann-Whitney U-test for short) aimed at examining whether or not there

were significant differences in the UPDT rates were run.

79
4.2. Production Impediments’ Analysis of the Line under Study

Figure 3.1 in chapter 3 shows a graphical depiction of the line under study in this

research. In the effort to effectively identify the root causes of the line’s productivity

impediments, the researcher employed a series of techniques to arrive at the results

presented in this study. In particular, the researcher conducted gemba walks to engage the

line’s operators and its mechanics. The researcher interviewed the plant management

team as well and reviewed various documents, including but not limited to training,

operation, and maintenance manuals, standard operating procedures (SOPs), testing

materials, etc. Furthermore, the researcher worked with the management team to

administer the Pre-Manufacturing Technician Level 1 (Pre-MT1) and the Proof of

Knowledge (POK) tests to the line’s first shift operators. The Pre-MT1 which requires a

minimum passing score of 75%, assessed the operators’ actual competency areas in the

manufacturing occupation. Meanwhile, the POK which requires a minimum passing

score of 80%, specifically evaluated the operators’ ability to proficiently operate the line.

The average score was below the minimum requirement for both tests.

4.3. The Root Cause Analysis (RCA) Brainstorming of the Line’s UPDT

In analyzing the identified line’s bottlenecks, a root cause analysis (RCA)

brainstorming session helped the researcher and the management team to isolate the

known impediments and associate them with their root causes. The RCA brainstorming

session of the line under study was a very essential step in the effort to identify the line’s

potential UPDT influencers and help determine the appropriate interventions or solutions

to the problem. Not only did the researcher work very closely with Alpha Company’s

plant management team, the operators of the line being studied were involved as well.

80
The findings of the RCA brainstorming session are presented graphically using an

Ishikawa (fishbone) diagram as illustrated in Figure 4.1 and Appendix E (for better

visibility). As a disclaimer, these root causes were not confirmed prior to implementing

corrective actions. Note that the Ishikawa diagram has been divided into two main

categories (performance of personnel and asset utilization) with two root cause nodes

each.

Tables 4.1 and 4.2 further summarize the RCA brainstorming session’s results

with some insights on the adopted agilized TPM intervention of this study.

Figure 4-1. Ishikawa (Fishbone) Diagram of Alpha Company’s UPDT

81
Table 4-1. Summary of Performance of Personnel Category RCA Brainstorming

82
Table 4-2. Summary of Asset Utilization Category RCA Brainstorming

83
4.4. Illustration of the Line Process Impediments

A swim lane process map of the line is depicted in Figure 4.2 and in Appendix J

(for better visibility). The productivity impediments of the line were characterized by

UPDT or Throughput Yield (TPY) reduction causing events. That being the case, the line

processes are color-coded in green, amber, or red with the bottleneck areas identified

with red or amber colors. A red color process is indicative of the presence of productivity

impediments contributing to at least 15% of the line’s UPDT or TPY reduction. The color

amber represents impediments contributing between 10 and 14% to UPDT and TPY

reduction. Green is indicative of processes contributing to less than 10% of the

productivity impediments at the line. These color-coded parameters are established with

respect to industry’s standard of 10% or less UPDT rate for a manufacturer to be

considered world-class (Mueller, 2016) and also with respect to Alpha Company’s set

goal to reduce UPDT by 20%.

The processes are alpha-numerically designated by the letter M for machine

followed by the numerical order of the machine in the process and the alphabetic order of

the process. For example, M4B indicates the second order of a process driven by machine

# 4 of the line. Table 4.3 summarizes the relationship between the line’s process with

respect to the impediments influencing it.

84
 Table 4-3. Line Process and its Associated UPDT Influencing Impediments

Figure 4-2. The Swim Lane Process Map of the Line

4.5. Pareto Analysis of the Line’s Process UPDT Causing Impediments

As indicated by the swim lane process map of the line, processes M1B, M1C,

M2C, and M4B are considered problematic. They are characterized by their significant

contributions to either UPDT or to TPY reduction. To further illustrate the line’s process

85
impediments or bottlenecks, a Pareto analysis was also performed in addition to the RCA

brainstorming illustrated in Figure 4.1. The UPDT influencing productivity impediments

in the line’s process are illustrated in Figure 4.3 and the TPY reduction causing

productivity impediments are shown in Figure 4.4 below.

Figure 4-3. Pareto Graph of Line’s Process UPDT Causing Impediments

Figure 4-4. Pareto Graph of Line’s Process TPY Reduction Causing

Impediments

86
4.6. Process Stability Analysis of the Line

In taking the line’s process impediments into account, a process stability analysis

was conducted. Figures 4.5 and 4.6 show the process control charts for the first shift’s

UPDT rate for the pre- and post-improvement periods respectively. As can be observed

upon inspection of Figure 4.5’s graph, one of the data points falls outside the upper

control limit (UCL), thus exhibiting a special cause variation. That data point falling

beyond 3 standard deviations (3σ) from the centerline is indicative of an unstable process

and constitutes a violation of the control chart rule (Montgomery, 2020).

Figure 4-5. Control Chart of the First Shift UPDT Distribution Before Improvement

As for Figure 4.6, it too has one of the data points falling outside the upper control

limit (UCL), thus exhibiting a special cause variation in violation of the control chart rule

(The Joint Commission, 2010). This indicates that the process is not completely stable for

this graph (Montgomery, 2020). However, the process has been improved as it shows

87
some noticeably more stability than the graph of Figure 4.5. Note also that the UCL has

gone from 83% in Figure 4.5 to 70% in Figure 4.6.

Figure 4-6. Control Chart of the First Shift UPDT Distribution After Improvement

In essence, although Figure 4.6 indicates that there is still one outlier outside of

the UCL from the centerline, the process shows more stability after the improvements

have been implemented for the first shift as compared to before. This suggests that the

interventions have in fact contributed to improving the stability of the line’s process

through reductions in its UPDT rate.

As for the line’s second shift, Figures 4.7 and 4.8 represent the control charts for

the pre- and post-improvement UPDT data. These two Figures show that the line’s

process has some special cause variations as well, which is suggestive of process

instability (The Joint Commission, 2010). Since the second shift was the control group of

this study, these results were expected.

88
 Figure 4-7. Control Chart of the Second Shift UPDT Distribution Before
Improvement

Figure 4-8. Control Chart of the Second Shift UPDT Distribution After
Improvement

From the process stability analysis of the line, it can be concluded therefore that

as a result of the UPDT influencing impediments, there is significant instability in the

89
line’s process. This explains the mostly non-normal distributions of the UPDT data for

both pre- and post-improvement periods. The descriptive statistics results of the UPDT

data are analyzed in the follow-on section.

4.7. The Line’s Process Impediments’ Reduction Results

The root cause analysis brainstorming exercise, the swim lane process map, the

Pareto analysis, and the stability analysis of the line were very useful guides to help

identify potential sources of productivity wastes and help minimize those (Krishnaiyer et

al., 2018). With these tools, the improvement efforts could be more focused as the

agilized TPM framework-driven interventions were being implemented at the line. This

study was able to help Alpha Company achieve some substantial productivity gains.

4.7.1. Analysis of the UPDT Descriptive Statistics Results

The stratified data represent mostly non-normal distributions for the UPDT data

for both the pre- and post-improvement implementation periods and for both shifts. Note

in Figure 4.9 that the P-values for three of the four sample sets were less than Alpha (α) =

0.05, so the assumption of normality was not met for a two-sample t-test.

90
 Probability Plot of UPDT (%), First shift, UPDT (%), Second shift
Normal - 95% CI
99
Variable Timing
UPDT (%), First shift After improvements
UPDT (%), First shift Before improvements
95 UPDT (%), Second shift After improvements
UPDT (%), Second shift Before improvements
90
Mean StDev N AD P
80 0.2245 0.1589 22 1.595 <0.005
70 0.3507 0.1626 35 1.249 <0.005
0.3327 0.1365 21 0.297 0.558
60
Percent

0.3973 0.1280 42 0.756 0.045

50
40
30
20

10
5

1
-40.00% -20.00% 0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00% 100.00%
Data

Figure 4-9. Normality Analysis of the Line’s Combined UPDT Data

Alternatively, Mann-Whitney was used, which has the assumption of similarly

shaped distributions. Figures 4.10 and 4.11 represent respectively the histograms of the

first shift’s UPDT for the periods before and after the improvements’ implementation.

Upon inspection of these two graphs, the shape of the distributions for the two time

periods look similar and they both show a similar pattern; they are both positively

skewed.

Therefore, because of these findings, the two-tailed Mann-Whitney two-sample

rank-sum test (Mann-Whitney U-test) was deemed the most practical test to run to

validate the hypothesis of this study instead of the two-sample t-test.

91
 Figure 4-10. First Shift UPDT Distribution Before Improvement Implementation

Figure 4-11. First Shift UPDT Distribution After Improvement Implementation

4.8. Testing the Hypothesis (RH)

To test the research hypothesis (RH) of this study, a series of Mann-Whitney U-

tests were performed to assess whether there was a difference in medians between the

92
first shift for the UPDT variables for the pre and post-improvement periods as influenced

by the agilized TPM framework implementation.

4.8.1. Mann-Whitney U Test for the First Shift UPDT Improvements

A Mann-Whitney U-test was performed to assess whether some significant

differences were present in the first shift UPDT rates between the periods before and after

the improvements were implemented. There were 35 observations in the pre-

improvement implementation group as opposed to 22 post-improvement implementation

observations. The U-test was run on a significance level of α = 0.05. As seen in Table

4.4, the before improvement median UPDT was 0.325 and the after improvement median

was 0.19625, with a P-value of 0 indicating there was statistical significance. These

results are further illustrated in Figure 4.12.

In essence, the result validated the hypothesis (RH) which claimed that the

agilized TPM framework would influence some UPDT rate reductions for the

experimental group (first shift) as part of a continuous process improvement program in

the packaging department of Alpha Company. As a result of the improvements

implemented, a 39.62% reduction in the UPDT rate has actually been achieved.

Table 4-4. Two-Tailed Mann-Whitney Test for First Shift UPDT

Median Rank
Variable Before improvements After improvements U z P
UPDT
0.325 0.19625 617.50 -3.81 < .001
1st Shift

93
 Figure 4-12. Ranks of the First Shift UPDT by Pre and Post-Improvement
Implementation Period

4.8.2. Mann-Whitney U Test for the Second Shift UPDT Improvements

The same analysis was conducted to determine similarity of the second shift’s

distributions for both before and after the improvement. Figures 4.13 and 4.14 represent

respectively the histograms of the second shift’s UPDT for the periods before and after

the implementation of the improvements. Upon inspection of these two graphs, the shape

of the distributions for the two time periods look similar and they both show a similar

pattern; they are both positively skewed. Therefore, because of these findings, the two-

tailed Mann-Whitney two-sample rank-sum test (Mann-Whitney U-test) was deemed the

most practical test to run to validate the hypothesis of this study instead of the two-

sample t-test.

94
Figure 4-13. Second Shift UPDT Distribution Before Improvement Implementation

Figure 4-14. Second Shift UPDT Distribution After Improvement Implementation

The purpose of this analysis was to compare the Second Shift’s UPDT data

collected for before and after the improvements were implemented. The second shift was

the control group and since no improvements were implemented to this shift, then there

should not be any statistically significant improvement noted in the timeframe of

95
improvements to the first shift. Indeed, there was not a statistically significant difference

noted after improvements (median 0.325) versus before (0.364, with a P-value 0.08 >

alpha 0.05), as expected. These results are presented in Table 4.5 and illustrated in Figure

4.15.

Table 4-5. Two-Tailed Mann-Whitney Test for Second Shift UPDT by Pre and Post-
Improvement Implementation Period

Median Rank
Variable Before improvements After improvements U z P
UPDT
0.364 0.325 561.00 -1.75 .080
2nd Shift

Figure 4-15. Ranks of the Second Shift UPDT by Pre and Post-Improvement
Implementation Period

96
 4.8.3. Mann-Whitney U Test to Compare the First and Second Shift UPDT
Rates After the Intervention Period

Prior figures show the distribution of the first and second shifts after the

improvements have been implemented are similar, which is an assumption of Mann-

Whitney. The purpose of this analysis is to further demonstrate that there was better

performance on the first shift than on the second shift, providing evidence that the

improvements were not from another causal effect. As shown in Table 4.6, the result of

the Mann-Whitney test was that after improvements, first shift had a median UPDT of

0.19625, but for second shift, the median was 0.325. The p-value was 0.002, indicating a

statistically significant difference as expected. Figure 4.16 illustrates this result.

Table 4-6. Two-Tailed Mann-Whitney Test to Compare the 1st & 2nd Shift UPDT

Median Rank
Variable 1st Shift 2nd Shift U z P
UPDT 0.19625 0.325 105.50 -3.05 .002

Figure 4-16. Ranks of UPDT by First and Second Shift After the Improvements

97
4.9. Conclusion from the Results

In conclusion, the results show that the agilized TPM framework intervention was

responsible for the statistically significant improvements that the first shift has indeed

experienced. Furthermore the first shift as the experimental group has also experienced

some statistically significant improvements on its UPDT variables over the second shift,

which was designated the control group with no interventions at all. These findings

validate the hypothesis of this study which claims that improvements influenced by the

agilized TPM framework would result in at least 20% reduction in unplanned downtime

(UPDT) rate at the Alpha Company’s packaging line.

98
 Chapter 5 — Discussion and Conclusions

5.1. Discussion

This research focused on improving the manufacturing operation of a plant using

total productive maintenance (TPM) augmented with agile principles. As a concept, TPM

puts a heavy emphasis on accentuating maintenance practices among other process

improvements. However, as a framework, TPM recognizes the entire human-machine

dimension in solving manufacturing productivity problems. The manufacturer featured in

this study and its productivity issues presented the perfect opportunity to leverage the

TPM framework to tackle a problem in which both human and machine performance

shortfalls were being exhibited. Yet, although TPM is recognized as a lean tool with a

proven track record for improving productivity, the drawback is that it takes time to

implement and to yield results. Agile management enhances overall processes through

efficiency, speed, and flexibility. Agilizing TPM by combining it with agile management

techniques was a suitable approach for this project to achieve optimal results relatively

quickly.

Implementing any new program in a manufacturing plant can present some

considerable challenges. Implementing TPM at Alpha Company was just as difficult as

expected, especially in the short period of time to conduct the study and amidst the social

distancing constraints imposed by the COVID-19 global pandemic at the time.

Nevertheless, those challenges presented an exceptional opportunity for some creativity,

which led to the enhancement of the solution that has already been envisioned. With the

99
need to implement TPM quickly under certain limitations, an agilized TPM approach was

favored and adopted as the best solution for this study.

5.2. Conclusions

The manufacturing line at Alpha Company’s packaging department averaged 45%

unplanned downtime (UPDT) rate over the 12 months preceding this study.

Consequently, this study primarily sought to reduce the UPDT rate at the line by

optimizing its workforce performance and its maintenance procedures. Many previous

studies have demonstrated that well-applied TPM models could effectively improve

UPDT rates, its resulting OEE, and other associated KPIs.

A case study was used as the chosen approach in this study to demonstrate that

a novel agilized TPM approach could improve the UPDT rates at the featured

manufacturing plant even more effectively. To realize the positive results of this

study, this hypothesis was key. It has been effectively tested and validated in this

study:

RH: Improvements influenced by the agilized TPM framework will

result in at least 20% reduction in unplanned downtime

(UPDT) rate at Alpha Company’s packaging department.

The production activities in Alpha Company’s manufacturing facility were

observed and its processes investigated. The plant’s first shift was the studied group

and the second shift was the control group. The results from the agilized TPM

intervention showed some statistically significant improvements of the plant’s first

shift over the second shift.

The agilized TPM framework intervention introduced in the factory did yield a

100
 39.62% UPDT rate reduction. Although not part of the research, OEE and Throughput

yield data were also gathered and roughly analyzed. The OEE analysis indicated a

26.67% score improvement and Throughput Yield (TPY) increased by 26.20%.

Five of the eight TPM pillars were employed in this study. Of those five

pillars, four of them were agilized. In essence, the agilized TPM framework

approach was characterized by the formation of agile teams to execute those four

TPM pillars. The shift was treated and managed as an agile project using agile

management principles and techniques to efficiently and effectively tackle the

various problems encountered by the line during the shift or to prevent those

problems through proactive or preventative measures.

This study demonstrated that, by employing the agilized TPM approach to

examine and address known or unknown deficient workforce performance and

maintenance procedures at a manufacturing line, some key machine processes can be

improved and a company can benefit from better workflow. These in turn can lead to

the achievement of targeted productivity goals and the attainment of faster results.

As a result of the Agilized TPM framework intervention, production line workers

became empowered and motivated to achieve more even with less. In essence, the

approach was able to solve some problems at the line that have seemed

unsurmountable in the past. In conclusion, better and faster results were

demonstrated with the implementation of the agilized TPM approach as a tool.

5.3. Contributions to Body of Knowledge

TPM is a well-known lean tool with a proven track record for improving

productivity through the performance optimization of machines as well as of the

101
workforce. On the other hand, the concept of forming agile teams to better manage

projects in manufacturing and other disciplines is gaining popularity as an efficient tool

which enhances overall processes by facilitating communication, injecting flexibility and

speed, and reducing bottlenecks or friction points. Unfortunately, the agile management

approach is not suitable for every situation imaginable.

The literature review of this study revealed that outside of software development

processes, agile methods have been widely embraced as sound business process

management (BPM) tools. However, the literature review has not found any previous

study in which the concept of employing an agile management approach to complement

or to further optimize an optimizing tool such as TPM being attempted before.

Combining agile and lean has been a very attractive consideration in manufacturing.

However, specifically agilizing targeted TPM pillars from within the TPM framework, is

a novel concept which has not been attempted before as assessed by the extensive

literature review conducted by the author of this study. The next closest attempt to

combine TPM with another optimization tool has been found in a study by Sivaram et al.

(2014). That study sought to conceptualize a model in which the eight TPM pillars were

fitted into the five major clauses of ISO 9001:2008 standard.

The now appreciated agilized TPM understanding derived from this study and the

newly found knowledge in the subject, in particular the case study, are directly applicable

not only to the featured manufacturer, but also to other manufacturing organizations.

Within Alpha Company’s industry group and beyond, much process improvement values

can be added to existing or evolving processes from the lessons learned from this study.

In particular, the principal contributions of this Praxis to the body of knowledge are:

102
 1. It demonstrated quantitatively through lean and agile management

techniques that UPDT reduction was achievable in a considerably short

time period even in a manpower-challenged environment as influenced by

the COVID-19 pandemic.

2. It demonstrated that a work shift can be treated as and managed similarly

to an agile project to which agile management techniques can be applied

in order to facilitate workflow, communication, teamwork, and problem

solving.

3. It demonstrated that training of personnel and maintenance procedures

can effectively be managed through agilized TPM at the local level and

does not necessarily need to be sponsored by upper management at the

organizational level.

4. It demonstrated that root-cause analyses don’t necessarily have to be

viewed or performed strictly as a top-down function. They can be

effectively performed at the local level and identified issues can be

tackled a lot faster when primarily managed locally.

5. It demonstrated that solutions in manufacturing that are designed to

encompass the total human-machine system, equally emphasizing both

the human and the machine domains, are inherently comprehensive and

therefore more effective and easier to implement.

This study presented a practical and comprehensive solution which primarily

emphasized the optimum employment of the workforce even when dealing with problems

that appear to be mostly machine centric. Human-machine systems require human-

103
machine solutions. Therefore, this solution has attempted to shift more responsibility to

the lowest level possible without necessarily stripping upper management from its

oversight responsibilities.

In conclusion, the approach of Agilized TPM worked. To further demonstrate the

usefulness of this novel approach, more application projects are needed to prove that the

results achieved can be repeated. Since the scope of application was limited in this study,

it needs to be extended in future studies. Furthermore, the tool adaptation needs more

fine-tuning and more agile practices need to be added to the Agilized TPM framework.

5.4. Recommendations for Future Research

This study has somewhat deviated from its initial scope, which was primarily to

measure and improve workforce performance at Alpha Company in order to reduce the

UPDT rate of the line under study and its OEE score. One of the reasons that prompted

the focus of this study to shift was the lack of data availability. Alpha Company is one of

the 39% of facilities (Pelliccione, 2016) that still rely on paper records to report their

maintenance activities. Therefore, the first and foremost recommendation of this study is

for Alpha Company to consider improving its data collection methods. Quality data is the

main ingredient needed to drive any effective process improvement effort. Alpha

Company should consider the feasibility of investing in more automated data collection

systems. Possessing this crucial capability will help facilitate decision-making at all

levels. Furthermore, it will make it easier and faster to identify problems and come up

with the best solutions.

As for future research opportunities, this study has identified five main

prospective studies that could potentially cover some of the gaps or answer some of the

104
pertinent questions that the scope and limitations of this study precluded the author from

investigating further. The following list should be considered by researchers who are

interested in broadening their understanding of the agilized TPM concept in the future:

1. Extend agilized TPM to fully autonomous machines: This study was

limited to investigating a line that was fitted with semi-autonomous

machines. With the emergence of Internet of Things (IoT) or Industrial

Internet of Things (IIoT), it would be interesting to investigate how

agilized TPM would be applicable in such data-rich environments.

2. Use of more agile methods with lean practices in other manufacturing

areas: The Single-Minute Exchange of Die (SMED) is an optimization

method that seeks to significantly reduce planned or unplanned downtime

by expediting the process or procedure of changing over equipment in a

manufacturing plant. It would be interesting to investigate how agilized

TPM could complement or facilitate the implementation of SMED in a

manufacturing plant. It would equally be interesting to investigate how

TPM could improve Kanban implementation or other lean tools.

3. Workforce Performance Gap (WPG): WPG should be investigated as a

predictor of UPDT, OEE, or other KPIs and as a worker’s performance

measure in the workplace as a function of work experience,

training/education, aptitude, and soft skills. WPG would be measured as

the delta between some pre-established baselined workforce performance

measures and a worker’s attained performance measures over time. The

correlation could then be established between WPG and the KPI that it is

105
 being measured against as a predictor.

4. The Overall Labor Effectiveness (OLE) KPI: As a relatively new KPI,

OLE is measured by the availability, performance, and quality human

factors, which are also the common OEE factors, but from the standpoint

of machines. This makes OLE an ideal performance measure and a

predictor for OEE. The challenge however is to develop the proper

method to measure and capture data for those three OLE human factor

variables and establish the correlation with their corresponding OEE

factors.

5. Leverage machine learning as a Decision Support Tool (DST): Implement

machine learning to facilitate integration of an agilized TPM in fully

automated plants. Although not absolutely needed, but in order to

facilitate the integration of an agilized TPM framework in an

organization, a decision support tool would be beneficial to both

management and the agile teams. Using sensor-collected or IoT/IIoT

automated machine data as its engine and leveraging machine learning,

the DST would help to further streamline the agile teams’ processes and

cross-team collaboration. It would add yet another level of flexibility to

an already flexible process by further reducing decision times between the

teams. The DST could even help reduce the frequency of sprint meetings

or eliminate the need for some of the other meetings and save time.

106
 References

3Back. (2020). The Dangers of Hybridized Agile. Web article. Retrieved 12 28, 2020,
from https://3back.com/agile/hybridized-agile-dangers/

Abdelilah, B., El Korchi, A., & Balambo, M. A. (2018). Flexibility and agility: evolution
and relationship. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 29(1),
1138-1162.

Adel, H. M. (2020). ICT, information sharing and a new hybrid lean-agile performance:
Empirical evidence from automotive hierarchical supply chains. International
Journal of Technology Management & Sustainable Development, 19(2), 221-
245(25). doi:10.1386/tmsd00023_1

Advanced Technology Services. (2006). Downtime Costs Auto Industry $22k/Minute.

Thomasnet.com. Retrieved from
https://news.thomasnet.com/companystory/downtime-costs-auto-industry-22k-
minute-survey-481017

Ahmad, N., Hossen, J., & Ali, S. M. (2018). Improvement of overall equipment
efficiency of ring frame through total productive maintenance: a textile case.
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology , 94(1), 239–256.
doi:10.1007/s00170-017-0783-2

Ahmed, S., Hassan, M. H., & Taha, Z. (2005). TPM can go beyond maintenance: Excerpt
from a case implementation. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, ,
11(1), 19-42. doi:10.1108/13552510510589352

Ahmed, T., Ali, S. M., Allama, M. M., & Parvez, M. S. (2010). A Total Productive
Maintenance (TPM) Approach to Improve Production Efficiency and
Development of Loss Structure in a Pharmaceutical Industry. Global Journal of
Management and Business Research, 10(2), 186-190.

Alyoubi, B., Hoque, M., Alharbi, I., Alyoubi, A., & Almazmomi, N. (2018). Impact of
Knowledge Management on Employee Work Performance: Evidence from Saudi
Arabia.

107
ASVAB Working Group. (1980). History of the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude
Battery (ASVAB) 1974 – 1980: A Report to the Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense (Manpower, Reserve Affairs and Logisics). DTIC.

Aziz, I., Karim, S., & Hossain, M. (2013). Effective Implementation of Total Productive
Maintenance and Impacts on Breakdown Time and Repair & Maintenance-A
Case Study Of A Printing Industry In Bangladesh. Retrieved from www.ijerd.com

Babcock, P. (2004). Shedding Light on Knowledge Management . HR Magazine.

Bader, S., Barth, T., Krohn, P., Ruchser, R., Storch, L., Wagner, L., Palm, D. (2019).
Agile Shopfloor Organization Design for Industry 4.0 Manufacturing. Procedia
Manufacturing, 39, 756-764.

Bamber, C., Castka, P., Sharp, J. M., & Motara, Y. (2003). Cross-functional team
working for overall equipment effectiveness (OEE). Journal of Quality in
Maintenance Engineering , 9(3), 223-238.

Baran, M., & Kłos, M. (2014). Competency Models and the Generational Diversity of a
Company Workforce. Economics & Sociology, 7(2), 209-217. doi:10.14254/2071-
789X.2014/7-2

Bartosz, M. (2016). Standardized Work with TWI: Eliminating Human Errors in

Production and Service Processes. Productivity Press.

Bartz, T., Siluk, J., & Bartz, A. (2014). Improvement of industrial performance with TPM
implementation. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, 20(1), 2-19.
doi:10.1108/JQME-07-2012-0025

Bhawarkar, R. M., & Dhamande, L. P. (2013). A Framework for the Implementation of

Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) to Improve the Performance of Business.
International Journal of Research in Advent Technology, 1(5), 1-9.

Biasotto, E., Dias, A., & Ogliari, A. (2010). Balanced scorecard for TPM maintenance
management.

108
Bidanda, B., Ariyawongrat, P., Needy, K. L., Norman, B., & Tharmmaphornphilas, W.
(2005). Human related issues in manufacturing cell design, implementation, and
operation: a review and survey. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 48 (3), 507-
523.

Bokrantz, J., Skoogh, A., Ylipää, T., & Stahre, J. (2016). Handling of production
disturbances in the manufacturing industry. Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management, 27, 1054–1075.

Braglia, M., Castellano, D., & Gallo, M. (2019). A novel operational approach to
equipment maintenance: TPM and RCM jointly at work. Journal of Quality in
Maintenance Engineering , 25(4), 612-634. doi:10.1108/JQME-05-2016-0018

Braglia, M., Frosolini, M., & Zammori, F. (2008). Overall equipment effectiveness of a
manufacturing line (OEEML). Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management, 20, 8–29.

Brewer, E. W., & Kubn, J. (2012). Causal-comparative design. In N. J. Salkind (Ed.),

Encyclopedia of research design . SAGE Publications. .
doi:10.4135/9781412961288

Brown, J. (2020). An examination of the Skills Framework for the Information Age
(SFIA), Version 7 - Technical Note. International Journal of Information
Management, 51(7). doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.102058

Campbell, J. (2011). Asset Management Excellence: Optimizing Equipment Life-Cycle

Decisions.

Chris, O. (2011). Total Productive Maintenance - Industry Forum on Business Excellence

Through Inspired People. Retrieved March 6, 2011, from
http://www.industryforum.co.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2011/05/Total-Productive-
MaintenanceOverview-Low-Res.pdf

Collier, K. W. (2011). Agile analytics: A value-driven approach to business intelligence

and data warehousing. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Addison-Wesley.

109
Conover, W. J., & Iman, R. L. (1981). Rank transformations as a bridge between
parametric and nonparametric statistics. The American Statistician, 35(3), 124-
129. doi:10.1080/00031305.1981.10479327

Coolen, F. (2018). Introduction to Reliability Theory (part 2).

Dasgupta, S., Agrawal¹, V., & Dasgupta², S. (2018). Identifying The Key Employability
Skills: Evidence From Literature Review Employability Skills in Hospitality View
project EMPLOYABILITY View project "Identifying The Key Employability
Skills: Evidence From Literature Review". Retrieved from www.iosrjournals.org

Davis, T., Cutt, M., & Flynn , N. (2007). Talent assessment: A new strategy for talent
management. Google Books.

Dhillon, B. (2002). Engineering Maintenance : A Modern Approach. CRC Press.

Díaz-Reza, J. R., García-Alcaraz, J. L., Avelar-Sosa, L., Mendoza-Fong, , J. R., Diez-

Muro, J. S., & Blanco-Fernández, J. (2019). The Role of Managerial Commitment
and TPM Implementation Strategies in Productivity Benefits. Applied Sciences,
8(7), 1-19. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.3390/app8071153

Doughty, C. J. (2013). Assessing Aptitude. Volume I. Abilities, Contexts, and Learners,

Part 2. Assessing Abilities,. doi:10.1002/9781118411360.wbcla117

Esa, F., & Yusof, Y. (2016). Implementing overall equipment effectiveness (OEE) and
sustainable competitive advantage: A case study of Hicom Diecastings Sdn.
ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 11(1), 199-203.

Fan, J., & Smith, A. P. (2017). The Impact of Workload and Fatigue on Performance.
International Symposium on Human Mental Workload: Models and Applications,
H-WORKLOAD 2017: Human Mental Workload: Models and Applications, 726,
pp. 90-105.

Farjad, S. (2012). The Evaluation Effectiveness of training courses in University by

Kirkpatrick Model (case study: Islamshahr university). Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences - WCES 2012, 46(1), 2837–2841.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.573

110
Gao, S., & Low, S. P. (2014). The Toyota Way model: an alternative framework for lean
construction. Total Quality Management, 25(6), 664-682.
doi:10.1080/14783363.2013.820022

Garg, A., & Deshmukh, S. G. (2006). Maintenance management: literature review and
directions. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, 12, 205-238.

General Electric (GE) Oil & Gas. (2016, 10). The Impact of Digital on Unplanned
Downtime: An Offshore Oil and Gas Perspective.

Gordon, G. (2008). Overall Labor Effectiveness: Extending the principles of OEE to the
workforce. Kronos, Inc.

Gram, M. (2013). A Systematic Methodology to Reduce Losses in Production with the

Balanced Scorecard Approach. Manufacturing Science and Technology , 1(1), 12-
22. doi:DOI: 10.13189/mst.2013.010103

Graupp, P., & Wrona, B. (2015). The TWI Workbook: Essential Skills for Supervisors.
Productivity Press.

Hedge, J. W., Borman, W. C., & Ispas, D. (2012). Personnel Recruitment, Selection, and
Turnover. In G. Salvendy (Ed.), Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics,
Fourth Edition (4th ed.). Wiley. doi:10.1002/9781118131350.ch16

Hedman, R., Subramaniyan, M., & Almström, P. (2016). Analysis of critical factors for
automatic measurement of OEE. In P. CIRP (Ed.), 49th CIRP Conference on
Manufacturing Systems (CIRP-CMS 2016). 57, pp. 128–133. Elsevier -
ScienceDirect.

Huang, T.-C. (2001). The relation of training practices and organizational performance in
small and medium size enterprises. Education and Training, 43(8, 9), 437-444.

Iannone, R., & Nenni, M. E. (2015). Managing OEE to Optimize Factory Performance.
INTECH , 31-50. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/55322

111
Ichijo, K., & Kohlbacher, F. (2007). The Toyota way of global knowledge creation the
'learn local, act global' strategy. International Journal of Automotive Technology
and Management , 7(1). doi:10.1504/IJATM.2007.014970

Iranzo, S., Schivardi, F., & Tosetti, E. (2008). Skill Dispersion and Firm Productivity: An
Analysis with Employer‐Employee Matched Data. Journal of Labor Economics,
26(2), 247-285. doi:10.1086/587091

Jain, A., Bhatti, R., Singh Deep, H., & kumar Sharma, S. (2012). Implementation of TPM
for Enhancing OEE of Small Scale Industry. International Journal of IT,
Engineering and Applied Sciences Research (IJIEASR), 1(1). Retrieved from
www.irjcjournals.org

Jaina, A., Bhattib, R., & Singh, H. (2013). Improvement of Indian SMEs through TPM
Implementation – An Empirical Study. Proc. of Int. Conf. on Advances in
Mechanical Engineering, AETAME (pp. 786-792). Elsevier.

Kelly, B., & Silvino, R. C. (2018). Tactical Productive Maintenance: A Targeted

Approach to TPM. IndustryWeek. Retrieved from
https://www.industryweek.com/operations/article/22026318/tactical-productive-
maintenance-a-targeted-approach-to-tpm

Kniberg, H., & Ivarsson, A. (2012). Scaling Agile at Spotify with Tribes, Squads,
Chapters & Guilds. Pearl.com. Retrieved from https://blog.crisp.se/wp-
content/uploads/2012/11/SpotifyScaling.pdf

Kolte, T. S., & Dabade, U. A. (2017). Machine Operational Availability Improvement by

Implementing Effective Preventive Maintenance Strategies - A Review and Case
Study. International Journal of Engineering Research and Technology,, 10(1),
700-708.

König, C. J., Klehe, U.-C., Berchtold, M., & Kleinmann, M. (2010). Reasons for Being
Selective When Choosing Personnel Selection Procedures. International Journal
of Selection and Assessment, 18(1), 17-27. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2389.2010.00485.x

112
Kostman, J. T. (2004). Multi-dimensional performance requires multi-dimensional
predictors: Predicting complex job performance using cognitive ability,
personality and emotional intelligence assessment instruments as combinatorial
predictors. City University of New York. New York: ProQuest Dissertations
Publishing.

Krishnaiyer, K., Chen, F., Burgess, B., & Bouzary, H. (2018). D3S model for sustainable
process excellence. Procedia Manufacturing. 26(1), 1441-1447.
doi:10.1016/j.promfg.2018.07.100

Krishnaveni, R., & Sripirabaa, B. (2008). Capacity Building Process for HR Excellence.
Vision: The Journal of Business Perspective, 12(2), 1-13.
doi:10.1177/097226290801200201

Kronos Incorporated. (2007). White Paper Overall Labor Effectiveness (OLE): Achieving
a Highly Effective Workforce. Kronos Incorporated.

Kronos Incorporated. (2010). White Paper - Flexing the Workforce: Using Overall Labor
Effectiveness to Manage Fluctuating Demand. Kronos Incorporated.

Kronos Incorporated. (2010). White Paper Overall Labor Effectiveness (OLE): The
Business Case for Labor Productivity. Kronos Incorporated.

Latino, R., & Latino, K. (2002). Root Cause Analysis : Improving Performance for
Bottom-Line Results (Second Edition ed.). (R. Latino, Ed.) CRC Press.

Lazim, M., Salleh, N., Subramaniam, C., & Othman , S. (2013). Total productive
maintenance and manufacturing performance: does technical complexity in the
production process matter. International Journal of Trade, Economics and
Finance, 4(6), 380-383.

Löfsten, H. (2000). Measuring maintenance performance – in search for a maintenance

productivity index. International Journal of Production Economics, 63(1), 47-58.
doi:10.1016/S0925-5273(98)00245-X

113
Loiro, C., Castro, H., Ávila, P., Cruz-Cunha, M. M., Putnik, G. D., & Ferreira, L. (2019).
Agile Project Management: A Communicational Workflow Proposal. Procedia
Computer Science, 164,(1), 485-490.

Mahjoub, R. K., & Bach, C. (2014). Knowledge Management Purposed Model. ASEE
2014 Zone I Conference, April 3-5, 2014. Bridgpeort, CT, USA: University of
Bridgeport.

Martomo, Z. I., & Laksono, P. W. (2018). Analysis of total productive maintenance

(TPM) implementation using overall equipment effectiveness (OEE) and six big
losses: A case study. AIP Conference Proceedings 1931, 030026. AIP.
doi:10.1063/1.5024085

McDowell, K. (2020). How to Calculate Downtime Costs and Avoid Unplanned

Downtime. MidColumbia Forklift. Retrieved from
https://www.midcoforklift.com/blog/downtime-cost-calculation

Mdhlalose, D. (2020). An Evaluation of the Impact of Training and Development on

Organisational Performance: A Case Study of the Gauteng Provincial Department
of Economic Development. Journal of Human Resource and Sustainability
Studies, 8(1), 48-74. Retrieved from https://www.scirp.org/journal/jhrss

Milliken & Company. (2018). Agile Operations: Creating Customer-Focused Production

Processes. Retrieved from www.PerformanceSolutionsbyMilliken.com

Milosavljević, P., & Rall, K. (2005). Six Sigma concept in the maintenance process of
technical systems. Mechanical Engineering, 3(1), 93-108.

Montgomery, D. C. (2020). Introduction to statistical quality control. Hoboken, NJ: John

Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Muchiri, P., & Pintelon, L. (2008). Performance Measurement Using Overall Equipment
Effectiveness (OEE): Literature Review and Practical Application Discussion.
International Journal of Production Research, 46(13), 3517–3535.

Mueller, S. (2016). How to Define World-class Maintenance. RELIABLEPLANT.

114
Murray, L. W., & Efendioglu, A. M. (2007). Valuing the investment in organizational
training. Industrial and Commercial Training, 39(7), 372-379.

Mwanzaa, B. G., & Mbohwaa, C. (2015). Design of a total productive maintenance

model for effective implementation: Case study of a chemical manufacturing
company. In I. 2. Industrial Engineering and Service Science 2015 (Ed.),
Procedia Manufacturing . 4, pp. 461–470. Elsevier - ScienceDirect.
doi:10.1016/j.promfg.2015.11.063

Nagel, R. (1991). 21ST Century Manufacturing Enterprise Strategy Report. Iacocca

Institute.

Nakajima, S. (1982). TPM Tenkai. Japan Institute of Plant Maintenance (JIPM).

Nakajima, S. (1988). Introduction to TPM : Total Productive Maintenance. Cambridge,

Mass. : Productivity Press, ©1988.

Nakajima, S., & Bodek, N. (2016). Introduction to TPM: Total Productive Maintenance
(Preventative Maintenance Series).

Nakamori, T. T. (2019). Understanding KAIZEN Practice in Japanese Overseas

Manufacturing: A Framework. (I. E. Ltd., Ed.) International Journal of
Knowledge Management Studies, 10(3), 271–298.
doi:10.1504/IJKMS.2019.10022835

Nath, U. K., Jagadev, A. K., & Pattnaik, P. K. (2021). Agile transformation for better
business values using orchestration model. Materials Today: Proceedings.

Niazi, A. S. (2011). Training and Development Strategy and Its Role in Organisational
Performance. Journal of Public Administration and Governance, 1(2), 42-56.
doi:10.5296/jpag.v1i2.862

Nithiyanandhan, V., & Kumar, K. M. (2016). Total Productive Maintenance (TPM)

Implementation Process in Machining Line. Journal on Science Engineering &
Technology, 3(1), 17-24.

115
Odeku, K. (2015). The role of interviewers in job effective recruitment and selection
processes. Journal of Governance and Regulation, 4(1), 224-229.
doi:10.22495/jgr_v4_i1_c2_p5

Oke, S. (2006). Handbook of Industrial and Systems Engineering.

Otter, T. (2012). Reaching Peak Performance Through Employee Engagement. Gartner,

Inc. Gartner, Inc.

Pandey, A. (2020). How to Boost Employee Performance Through Just-in-time Learning

and Performance Support Tools. Retrieved from
https://www.eidesign.net/insights/.

Patra, N. K., Tripathy, J. K., & Choudhary, B. K. (2005). Implementing the office total
productive maintenance (‘office TPM’) program: a library case study. Library
Review, 54(7), 415-424.

Pelliccione, A. (2016). 2016 Maintenance Study: Seven key findings. Plant Engineering.
Retrieved from https://www.plantengineering.com/articles/2016-maintenance-
study-seven-key-findings/

Perrow, C. (1983). The Organizational Context of Human· Factors Engineering.

Administrative Science Quarterly.

Pillai, E., Robert, T., & Rajmohan, M. (2011). Study on the influence of human factors
on Overall Equipment Effectiveness. European Journal of Scientific Research.,
53, 179-192.

Putnik, G. D. (2012). Lean vs agile from an organizational sustainability, complexity and

learning perspective. The Learning Organization, 19, 176-182.

Rivera-Gómez, H., Montaño-Arango, O., Corona-Armenta, J. R., Garnica-González, J.,

Hernández-Gress, E. S., & Barragán-Vite, I. (2018). Production and Maintenance
Planning for a Deteriorating System with Operation-Dependent Defectives.
Applied Sciences, 8(2), 165-188. doi:doi:10.3390/app8020165

116
Robertson, I. T., & Smith, M. (2010). Personnel selection. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 74(4), 441-472. doi:10.1348/096317901167479

Santos Bernardes, E., & Hanna, M. D. (2009). A theoretical review of flexibility, agility
and responsiveness in the operations management literature. International Journal
of Operations & Production Management, 29, 30-53.

Schuster, J. G. (2011). Training and its Value in Reducing Maintenance Costs. EHS
Today. Retrieved March 4, 2021, from https://www.ehstoday.com/training-and-
engagement/article/21913641/training-and-its-value-in-reducing-maintenance-
costs

Shagluf, A., Longstaff, A. P., & Fletcher, S. (2014). Maintenance Strategies to Reduce
Downtime Due to Machine Positional Errors. COIMBRA, 111-118.
doi:10.14195/978-972-8954-42-0_25

Shek, D. T., & Wu, J. (2018). Quasi-experiemental designs. In B. B. Frey (Ed.), The
SAGE encycolpedia of educational research, measurement, and evaluation.
SAGE Publications.

Shin Min, C., Ahmad, R., & Kamaruddi, S. (2011). Development of autonomous
maintenance implementation framework for semiconductor industries.
International Journal of Industrial and Systems Engineering, 9(3).
doi:10.1504/IJISE.2011.043139

Siekmann, G., & Fowler, C. (2017). Identifying work skills: international approaches. .
Adelaide, Australia: National Centre for Vocational Education Research
(NCVER). Retrieved from https://www.ncver.edu.au

Soltan , H., & Mostafa, S. (2015). Lean and Agile Performance Framework for
Manufacturing Enterprises. Procedia Manufacturing,, 2, pp. 476-484.

Soltan, H., & Mostafa, S. (2014, March). Leanness and Agility within Maintenance
Process. International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT),
3(3), 553-555. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274084488

117
Srivastava, P. (2018). Agile Manufacturing: Concepts and Evolution.

Stratus Technologies. (2013). Manufacturer IT Applications Study: Finding the Real Cost
of Downtime. IndustryWeek. Retrieved from
https://www.industryweek.com/technology-and-iiot/information-
technology/article/21960985/manufacturer-it-applications-study-finding-the-real-
cost-of-downtime

The Joint Commission. (2010). Users' Guide to CMIP Performance MeasureTrend

Reports. Joint Commission Resources.

Udokporo, C. K., Anosike, A., Lim, M., Nadeem, S. P., Garza-Reyes, J. A., & Ogbuka,
C. P. (2020). Impact of Lean, Agile and Green (LAG) on business
competitiveness: An empirical study of fast moving consumer goods businesses.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 156.

Vanson Bourne Global. (2017). Human Error is More Common Cause of Unplanned
Downtime in Manufacturing Than Any Other Sector, According to New Research.
ServiceMax from GE Digital,. Businesswire. Retrieved from
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20171106006370/en/Human-Error-
Common-Unplanned-Downtime-Manufacturing-Sector

Wakjira , M. W., & Iyengar, A. S. (2014). Autonomous Maintenance: A Case Study on

Assela Malt Factory. Bonfring International Journal of Industrial Engineering
and Management Science, 4(4), 170-178. doi:10.9756/BIJIEMS.10364

Wallner, B., Trautner, T., Pauker, F., & Kittl, B. (2021). Evaluation of process control
architectures for agile manufacturing systems. Conference on Intelligent
Computation in Manufacturing Engineering, 2021. (pp. 680-685). ScienceDirect.

Welsh, J., Kucinkas, S., & Curran, L. (1990, 7). Armed Services Vocational Battery
(ASVAB): Integrative Review of Validity Studies. Brooks Air Force Base, Texas.

Włodarczyk, E., & Niedzielski, P. (2016). Proceedings of Scientific Papers. 13th

International Scientific Conference, HUMAN POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, 7–9
June, 2016. Szczecin, Poland: University of Szczeci.

118
Wolniak, R. (2019). Downtime in the Automotive Industry Production Process - Cause
Analysis. Quality Innovation Prosperity, 23(2), 101-118.
doi:10.12776/QIP.V23I2.1259

Woods, D. (2010). Why Lean And Agile Go Together. Forbes Magazine. Retrieved from
https://www.forbes.com/2010/01/11/software-lean-manufacturing-technology-
cio-network-agile.html?sh=5db6136eb09b

Xiang , Z. T., & Feng, C. J. (2021). Implementing Total Productive Maintenance in a

Manufacturing Small or Medium-Sized Enterprise. Journal of Industrial
Engineering and Management JIEM, 14(2), 152-175. doi:10.3926/jiem.3286

Yadav, A., & Sukhwani, V. (2016). Quality improvement by using six sigma DMAIC in
an industry. International Journal of Current Engineering and Technology, 6(6),
41-46.

Zennaro, L., Battini, D., Sgarbossa, F., Persona, A., & De Marchi, R. (2018). Micro
downtime: Data collection, analysis and impact on OEE in bottling lines the San
Benedetto case study. International Journal of Quality, Reliability, &
Management, 35, 965–995.

119
Appendix A: Sample Company Invitation Email

120
 Appendix B: Study UPDT Data

Date UPDT (%), UPDT (%), Timing

First shift Second shift
10/26/2020 45% 58% Before improvements
10/27/2020 45% 45% Before improvements
10/28/2020 32% 33% Before improvements
10/29/2020 32% 69% Before improvements
11/2/2020 47% 36% Before improvements
11/3/2020 20% 33% Before improvements
11/4/2020 33% 55% Before improvements
11/5/2020 37% 44% Before improvements
11/6/2020 23% 25% Before improvements
11/10/2020 22% 32% Before improvements
11/11/2020 21% 35% Before improvements
11/12/2020 36% 37% Before improvements
11/13/2020 33% 46% Before improvements
11/17/2020 48% Before improvements
11/18/2020 24% 33% Before improvements
11/19/2020 20% 31% Before improvements
11/20/2020 18% 43% Before improvements
11/23/2020 23% Before improvements
11/24/2020 57% 58% Before improvements
11/30/2020 45% Before improvements
12/1/2020 53% 38% Before improvements
12/2/2020 43% Before improvements
12/3/2020 32% 24% Before improvements
12/4/2020 12% 22% Before improvements
12/7/2020 20% 24% Before improvements
12/8/2020 24% 25% Before improvements
12/9/2020 36% 33% Before improvements
12/10/2020 71% 48% Before improvements
12/11/2020 24% 56% Before improvements
12/14/2020 43% 50% Before improvements
12/15/2020 49% 56% Before improvements
12/16/2020 94% 68% Before improvements
12/17/2020 23% 43% Before improvements
12/18/2020 35% 34% Before improvements
12/21/2020 31% 24% Before improvements
12/22/2020 33% 23% Before improvements
12/23/2020 34% 35% Before improvements
1/4/2021 59% Before improvements
1/5/2021 24% Before improvements

121
 Date UPDT (%), UPDT (%), Timing
First shift Second shift
1/6/2021 45% 34% Before improvements
1/7/2021 33% Before improvements
1/8/2021 22% 45% Before improvements
1/11/2021 56% 37% During improvements
1/12/2021 59% 36% During improvements
1/13/2021 44% 46% During improvements
1/14/2021 19% 24% During improvements
1/15/2021 43% 69% During improvements
1/19/2021 18% 23% During improvements
1/20/2021 9% 24% During improvements
1/21/2021 57% 24% During improvements
1/22/2021 9% 44% During improvements
1/25/2021 13% 55% During improvements
1/26/2021 22% During improvements
1/27/2021 9% 80% During improvements
1/28/2021 23% 49% During improvements
1/29/2021 12% 25% During improvements
2/1/2021 61% During improvements
2/2/2021 37% During improvements
2/3/2021 8% During improvements
2/4/2021 9% 23% During improvements
2/5/2021 41% 61% During improvements
2/8/2021 22% 35% During improvements
2/9/2021 19% During improvements
2/10/2021 8% 23% During improvements
2/11/2021 20% During improvements
2/15/2021 35% During improvements
2/16/2021 24% During improvements
2/19/2021 59% During improvements
2/23/2021 11% During improvements
2/24/2021 11% 32% During improvements
2/25/2021 24% During improvements
2/26/2021 35% During improvements
3/1/2021 10% 21% During improvements
3/2/2021 12% During improvements
3/3/2021 8% 24% During improvements
3/5/2021 33% During improvements
3/8/2021 62% 9% During improvements
3/9/2021 10% 21% During improvements
3/10/2021 10% During improvements
3/11/2021 7% During improvements

122
 Date UPDT (%), UPDT (%), Timing
First shift Second shift
3/15/2021 7% During improvements
3/16/2021 8% During improvements
3/18/2021 19% During improvements
3/19/2021 6% 18% During improvements
3/24/2021 11% During improvements
3/25/2021 8% During improvements
3/26/2021 8% During improvements
3/27/2021 8% 35% After improvements
3/29/2021 9% 46% After improvements
3/30/2021 12% 18% After improvements
3/31/2021 31% 18% After improvements
4/1/2021 19% 33% After improvements
4/6/2021 32% After improvements
4/7/2021 31% 11% After improvements
4/8/2021 19% 19% After improvements
4/9/2021 10% 36% After improvements
4/12/2021 18% 36% After improvements
4/13/2021 34% 49% After improvements
4/14/2021 21% 22% After improvements
4/15/2021 9% 32% After improvements
4/16/2021 19% 46% After improvements
4/19/2021 25% After improvements
4/20/2021 22% 22% After improvements
4/21/2021 28% 26% After improvements
4/22/2021 20% 40% After improvements
4/26/2021 9% After improvements
4/27/2021 24% 70% After improvements
4/28/2021 83% 37% After improvements
4/29/2021 24% 31% After improvements
4/30/2021 12% 49% After improvements

123
Appendix C: WBA and Pre-MT1 Assessment Score Sheet

124
Appendix D: Operator/Mechanic Auto-Cartoning Proof of Knowledge (POK) Test

125
126
Appendix E: Root Cause Analysis (RCA) Brainstorming of UPDT

127
Appendix F: Failure Mode & Effects Analysis (FMEA) – Methods/Processes

128
Appendix G: FMEA – Work Performance & Human Factors

129
Appendix H: FMEA – Line Equipment

130
Appendix I: FMEA – Maintenance

131
Appendix J: Line Process Map

132
Appendix K: Agilized TPM Framework

133
Appendix L: Agilized TPM Use Case Diagram

134
Appendix M: Agilized Focused Improvement (Kaizen) Pillar Activity Diagram

135
Appendix N: Agilized Administration/Office TPM Pillar Activity Diagram

136
Appendix O: Agilized Autonomous Maintenance Pillar Activity Diagram

137
Appendix P: Agilized Planned Maintenance Pillar Activity Diagram

138
 ProQuest Number: 28867338

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality and completeness of this reproduction is dependent on the quality
and completeness of the copy made available to ProQuest.

Distributed by ProQuest LLC ( 2021 ).

Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author unless otherwise noted.

This work may be used in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons license
or other rights statement, as indicated in the copyright statement or in the metadata
associated with this work. Unless otherwise specified in the copyright statement
or the metadata, all rights are reserved by the copyright holder.

This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17,

United States Code and other applicable copyright laws.

Microform Edition where available © ProQuest LLC. No reproduction or digitization

of the Microform Edition is authorized without permission of ProQuest LLC.

ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346 USA