Implementation of Kaizen Techniques

in TPM
M S Prabhuswamy*, K P Ravikumar** and P Nagesh**

Kaizen is a cost-effective and customer-friendly strategy, which calls for small

incremental improvements. It is one of the eight important and distinct pillars of
Total Productive Maintenance (TPM). In TPM, there are some parameters
considered vital to attain dual goals of quality and productivity. Manufacturers
have to meet customer satisfaction through Continuous Improvement (CI) in the
quality of products and services delivered. The concept of CI is based on Deming’s
P-D-C-A cycle which deals with the shortfall and sources of variability that deviate
from quality output and improving the process to eliminate undesirable results.
Thus for an industry, to achieve significant improvements in the service or quality
of the products delivered, it is important to implement and practice the Kaizen
program. The objective is to achieve reduction in breakdowns by implementing
TPM activities using Kaizen and autonomous maintenance.
Keywords: Kaizen, Muda, Fuguai, OEE, Zero breakdowns

Introduction
Total Productive Maintenance (TPM) is related to business excellence strategies
such as Kaizen, Just-In-Time (JIT), and Total Quality Management (TQM). Kaizen
implies continuous improvement and has a direct link to the TPM strategy of focused
improvement, and therefore they complement each other. Similarly, TPM provides a
foundation for JIT to be successful. Better maintenance and higher productivity
provide components for JIT manufacturing at a higher quality and with better
assurance of availability of parts. TPM is a program for the fundamental improvement
of the maintenance functions in an organization, which involves its entire human
resources. When implemented successfully, TPM dramatically improves productivity
and quality and reduces costs.
As per Nakajima (1988), implementation of TPM can generate considerable cost
savings through increased productivity of the machinery. Cost-effectiveness can be a
direct result of an organization’s ability to eliminate the causes of the reduction in
equipment effectiveness.
* Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Sri Jayachamarajendra College of Engineering, Mysore
570006, Karnataka, India. E-mail: msp_sjce@yahoo.com
** Associate Professor, Department of Automobile Engineering, Malnad College of Engineering, Hassan, Karnataka,
India; and is the corresponding author. E-mail: ravikumarkp70@yahoo.com
*** Associate Professor, Centre for Management Studies, Sri Jayachamarajendra College of Engineering, Mysore
570006, Karnataka, India. E-mail: pnagesh1973@rediffmail.com

38
© 2013 IUP. All Rights Reserved. The IUP Journal of Mechanical Engineering, Vol. VI, No. 3, 2013
 Goto (1989a) highlighted that the third pillar deals with the development of an
autonomous maintenance program. Autonomous maintenance may be the most
ambitious part of implementing TPM because it depends on shop-floor operators’
commitment.
Goto (1989b) points out that the maintenance prevention, the fifth pillar of TPM,
strives for making maintenance activities unnecessary or easier by developing and
purchasing ‘maintenance-free’ machines.
The detailed implementation procedures are found in the case studies conducted
by Hartmann (1992), Kaizen (1997), Patterson and Hendrick (1996) and Suzuki
(1992).
Miyake and Enkawa (1995) highlighted the application of JIT, TQC and TPM
paradigms to improve manufacturing systems performance.
Various case studies repor t the improvement in Overall Equipment
Effectiveness (OEE) conducted by Hussein (1993). There are various mathematical
models for measuring OEE developed by various researchers such as Jacobs and
Powell (2003).
Dal and Yamashima (2000) defined OEE in combination with operation,
maintenance and management of manufacturing equipment and resources. Sattler
and Schlueter (1998) suggested some practical solutions highlighting the OEE at the
Texas Instruments, Dallas, Texas, USA which have been designed to minimize many
of the semiconductor metric problems.
The experts in TPM claim the effectiveness of its drive in improving the business
performance, according to Yamashima (2000), which is also endorsed by Chandra
and Krishna (1998) in the Indian context. However, the need for studies to establish
the evidence for the effectiveness of TPM drive for improving business performance
has also been expressed by experts (Mohenti and Lakhe, 2000).
Kaizen is the most effective pillar which gives excellent results.This study discusses
some problems wherein Kaizen is implemented. The objective of the study is to
implement Kaizen to eliminate the problems at the shop floor.

2. Materials and Methods

The following are the methods needed to achieve the objective:
1. Deming’s P-D-C-A cycle
2. 5S principles
3. Elimination of wastes
4. Why-Why analysis

Implementation of Kaizen Techniques in TPM 39

2.1 Deming’s P-D-C-A Cycle
Procedures of P-D-C-A cycle are presented in Table 1. P-D-C-A cycle comprises
four steps. In the first step, select the problem, collect the data related to the problem
and find the solution. In the second step, implement the solution. In the third step,
monitor the results. In the final step, standardize the new process on the basis of
results obtained.
Table 1: P-D-C-A Cycle Details
P Plan Pick a project, collect the data. Pick likely causes using pareto principle or scatter
diagram and try to get the solution.
D Do Implement the solution.
C Check Monitor the results using histograms or control charts.
A Act Standardize the new process.

2.2 5S-Principles
Quality is an approach to improve the effectiveness and flexibility of an organization.
In a company, TPM must begin with its basics, the 5S principles. It is presented in
detail in Table 2.
Table 2: Terminology of 5S
Japanese Term English Translation Equivalent ‘S’ Term
Seiri Organization Sort
Seiton Tidiness Systematize
Seiso Cleaning Sweep
Seiketsu Standardization Standardize
Shitsuke Discipline Self-discipline

2.3 Elimination of Wastes (Muda)

In Kaizen, elimination of waste is a major step. Any activity that does not add value is
called waste or muda, a Japanese term. Waste elimination is the most cost-effective
way to improve productivity. Types and description of wastes are shown in Table 3.
Six types of wastes are as follows:
1. Muda of over production
2. Muda of waiting
3. Muda of transportation
4. Muda of processing

40 The IUP Journal of Mechanical Engineering, Vol. VI, No. 3, 2013

 5. Muda of inventory
6. Muda of motion
7. Muda of defects
Table 3: Types of Wastes andTheir Description
Types of Waste Description
Over Production Producing more, sooner and faster than required by the next process.
Waiting Operator or machine idle time.
Transportation Any movement that does not add value to the product.
Processing Doing more work than necessary.
Inventory Maintaining excess inventory.
Motion Any wasted motion to pick up parts or stock parts. Also, unnecessary walking
(unwanted motion).
Defects/Correction All repairs of product to fulfill customer requirements.

2.4 Why-Why Analysis

To identify and rectify the root cause of the problem, why-why analysis is a more
effective tool. An example is shown in Table 4. Analysis is made to identify and eliminate
the root cause of oil leakage from feed shaft. Within a short period, the solution will
be available with why-why analysis.
Table 4: Why-Why Analysis
Why No. Why s Answer Action
1. Why the leakage? Damaged O-ring. Replace with a new one.
2. Why the damage? Due to scratched shaft. Remove the scratches.
3. Why the scratch? Scattered chips stick on the Prevent chips from
rod. scattering.
4. Why the chips stick on to Location of shaft within the Avoid the scattering of chips
the rod? scatter range of chips and and cover the shaft.
uncovered shaft.
5. Why the uncovered shaft? Poor design. Improve the design.

3. Case Study
The study was conducted in an automobile industry. Earlier, the company was
experiencing the problem of high frequency of breakdowns, high system downtime,
frequent accidents and defects. TPM is implemented to vertical boring machine

Implementation of Kaizen Techniques in TPM 41

which is identified as a critical machine that experiences frequent problems like
breakdowns related to electric motor and alignment. Autonomous maintenance and
Kaizen were introduced as a part of TPM at an initial stage. These pillars provide
tangible and intangible benefits within the least possible time. The steps followed to
implement TPM for vertical boring machines are as follows:
Phase 1: Initial cleaning;
Phase 2: Identifying the source of problems;
Phase 3: Estimation of OEE before TPM;
Phase 4: Development of lubricating standards;
Phase 5: Autonomous inspections; and
Phase 6: Evaluation of TPM results
Phase 1: Initial Cleaning
Cleaning is aimed at exposing and eliminating the hidden defects. During cleaning,
everyone touches all parts of the equipment and takes a look of every nook and
corner. This thorough approach increases the chances of detecting the hidden defects
like abnormal vibration, noise, odor and overheating. Initial cleaning refers to
inspection. Also, it completely removes foreign substances such as dirt, chips, sludge,
and scraps that adhere to equipment, tools and jigs. Some parts with chips and their
effects are given below.
• Chips adhering or intermingling with the sliding parts and electric or
instrumental devices cause abnormal friction, vibration, erosion, clogging,
leakage and burnout or insulation deterioration.
• Chucks contaminated with chips interfere with the workpiece to be
processed on machines and thereby cause scratches.
• Contaminated equipment, tools and jigs cannot be inspected effectively
with the naked eye.
After the abnormalities are observed, a tag is attached to the machine. Tags are the
indicators which highlight the status of the machine. The number of tags shows the
number of problems associated with the machine.
Fuguai are the defects or deviation from the normal state, which may alter the
quality of final product or may cause the deterioration and consequent failure of the
machines. These are of three types pertaining to the departments of mechanical,
electrical and quality circle members. Tags used are of three colors blue for mechanical,
green for electrical and black for circle members. After attending to the problem, tags
are removed and tied to fuguai tree. As the level of TPM increases, the number of tags
on tree increases.The description of fuguai and countermeasure data has been collected.
42 The IUP Journal of Mechanical Engineering, Vol. VI, No. 3, 2013
 Fuguai, i.e., fuguai identified, attended and balance, is shown in Table 5. Data
collected are for one month and defects related to mechanical, electrical and
electronics are recorded. Using these details, the OEE is calculated. Table 5 depicts
the status of fuguai before the implementation of TPM. There were increases in
fuguai, as observed from Table 5. Total defects attended successfully are also
presented. Elimination of these defects is mainly dependent on the type of
maintenance system the company has. The number of non-utilized hours of machine
due to defects of mechanical, electrical and electronics is considered as breakdown
hours. For example, on day one, non-utilized hours due to mechanical problems
are 2 h and due to electrical problem it is 1 hour. Total 3 hours are non-utilized
hours. In this case, 60 hours accounted for breakdown time. With this, availability
and OEE are calculated.
Table 5: Fuguai Status BeforeTPM
Fuguai Identified Fuguai Attended Balance Fuguai
in Hours in Hours in Hours
Mechanical

Mechanical

Mechanical
Electronics

Electronics

Electronics
Electrical

Electrical

Electrical
Days

Total

Total

Total
1 2 1 0 3 – – – – 2 1 – 3
2 1 1 0 2 – – – – 1 1 – 2
3 4 1 1 6 3 1 – 4 1 0 1 2
4 3 1 1 5 2 – – 2 1 1 1 3
5 3 2 1 6 2 1 – 3 1 1 1 3
6 2 2 1 5 1 1 – 2 1 1 1 3
7 2 1 1 4 1 – – 1 1 1 1 3
8 2 2 1 5 1 1 – 2 1 1 1 3
9 2 2 1 5 2 1 1 4 – 1 – 1
10 3 1 1 5 2 1 1 4 1 – – 1
11 2 1 1 4 1 1 1 3 1 – – 1
12 2 2 1 5 1 2 – 3 1 – 1 2
13 1 2 1 4 – 1 – 1 1 1 1 3
14 2 2 1 5 1 1 1 3 1 1 – 2
15 3 2 1 6 2 1 – 3 1 1 1 3
16 2 1 1 4 1 1 – 2 1 – 1 2

Implementation of Kaizen Techniques in TPM 43

 Table 5 (Cont.)
Fuguai Identified Fuguai Attended Balance Fuguai
in Hours in Hours in Hours
Mechanical

Mechanical

Mechanical
Electronics

Electronics

Electronics
Electrical

Electrical

Electrical
Days

Total

Total

Total
17 2 1 2 5 1 – 1 2 1 1 1 3
18 2 1 1 4 1 – – 1 1 1 1 3
19 1 2 1 4 – 1 – 1 1 1 1 3
20 1 2 1 4 – 1 – 1 1 1 1 3
21 1 1 1 3 – 1 – 1 1 – 1 2
22 1 2 1 4 1 1 – 2 – 1 1 2
23 2 1 2 5 1 1 1 3 1 – 1 2
24 1 2 1 4 1 – 1 2 – 2 – 2
25 2 2 1 5 1 1 – 2 1 1 1 3
Total 49 38 25 112 26 19 7 52 23 19 18 60

Phase 2: Identify the Source of Problems

Cleaning is aimed at exposing and eliminating the hidden defects. During cleaning,
everyone touches all parts of the equipment. This thorough approach increases the
chances of detecting hidden defects, abnormal vibration, noise, odor and
overheating.
After identifying the problem, immediate action has to be taken to eliminate the
source of the problem. For this, Why-Why analysis is most effective. For every answer
to a Why, action should be taken immediately. It is a very simple method, by which it
is possible to identify and eliminate the root cause of this problem. Simple Why-Why
analysis is made to identify and to eliminate the root cause of oil leak problem from
feed shaft, as shown in Table 4.
Phase 3: Estimation of OEE before TPM
Considering the operation based on the two shifts per day, every shift is for eight
hours. The calculation of OEE is as follows:
• Working days in a month = 25 days
• Running time per day = 16 h
• Planned downtime per shift = 15 min

44 The IUP Journal of Mechanical Engineering, Vol. VI, No. 3, 2013

 • Planned downtime per day = 30 min
• Planned downtime per month = 12 ½ h
• Setup and adjustment losses per day = 30 min
• Setup and adjustment losses per month = 12 ½ h
• Loading time per day = (Running time – Planned
down time)
= (16 – ½) = 15 ½ h
• Loading time per month = Loading time per day  25
= 387 ½ h
• Loading time per year = 387 ½  12 = 4650 h
• Operating time per day = Running time – (Planned
down time + Setup and
adjustment losses +
Breakdown time*)
= 16 – (½ + ½ + ½)
= 14 ½ h
*Breakdown time per day is
considered as ½ hour.
• Operating time per month = 400 – (12½ +12 ½ + 60**)
= 315 h
**Breakdown time per month = 60 Hours (from fuguai Table
No. 9)
• Operating time per year = 315  12 = 3780 h
• Breakdown time during the year
June 2004-May 2005 = 60  12 = 720 h

Operating time 3780

Availability =   81.3%
Loading time 4650

Performance Efficiency
• Design time for machine to = 5½ h
complete job

Implementation of Kaizen Techniques in TPM 45

 • Actual time to complete the job = 6h

Design time ideal cycle time 

• Speed efficiency = Actual cycle time

= 5.3/6 = 0.883
These losses occur due to machine running at lower speed than the designed
speed because of vibration, improper maintenance, etc.

Processed amount  Actual cycle time

• Rate efficiency = Operation time

2 6
=  84%
14 12

These losses occurs due to idle and minor stoppages, etc.

Performance efficiency = Speed efficiency  Rate
efficiency
= 0.883  0.84 = 74%
Processed amount  Defective amount
Rate of quality = Processed amount

There were no rejected products; however, approximately 2% losses occurred

due to rework.
Rate of quality = 98%
Based on the data, evaluation of OEE is presented as follows:
OEE = Availability  Performance
efficiency  Rate of quality
= 0.813  0.74  0.98
OEE = 59%
Before the implementation of TPM, the value of OEE was 59% because of various
problems and breakdowns encountered during the operation, which are represented
in Table 5. The above estimation shows the effects of parameters like availability,
performance efficiency and rate of quality on OEE. An effort is made to improve
OEE, by implementing TPM successfully in the following phases.

46 The IUP Journal of Mechanical Engineering, Vol. VI, No. 3, 2013

Phase 4: Development of Lubricating Standards
Operators, when setting the standards on their own, make them both easy to follow
and conducive to favorable operating conditions. They recognize the necessity and
importance to follow the standards. When the operators try to clean and lubricate
the equipment simultaneously, within a given time target specified by the combined
tentative cleaning and lubricating standards, many unforeseen problems may appear.
These new difficulties stem from the fact that there lies certain limitation in how the
operators are able to move and the amount of hand tools and lubricants that they are
able to carry about. In this regard, operators are taught about lubrication by maintenance
engineers. When they gain the basic knowledge and skill, they perform relevant steps in
the sequence, as given in Table 6. CAPD cycle is repeated until time targets are met.
Table 6: Application of CAPD Cycle
Check Identify lubricating points and surfaces. Detect defective areas in equipment related to
lubrication.
Act Remedy the defective areas and modify difficult lubricating areas.
Plan Set the cleaning and lubricating standards.
Do Execute the cleaning and lubricating standards.

On the basis of the results obtained from the CAPD cycle, the following lubricating
steps are developed, as depicted in Table 7.
Table 7: Lubricating Steps
Steps Major Activity
1 Educate the operators about lubrication.
2 Identify lubricating points and surfaces.
3 Allocate routine lubricating tasks.
4 Set tentative lubricating standards.
5 Estimate lubricating intervals.
6 Set lubricating time targets.
7 Set improvement targets.
8 Sources of contamination.
9 Identify equipment defects.
10 Identify difficult cleaning areas.
11 Review lubricating standards.
12 Compare with lubricating standards set by full-time maintenance.
13 Set cleaning and lubricating standards.
14 Develop a short remedial program.
15 Conduct an autonomous maintenance audit.

Implementation of Kaizen Techniques in TPM 47

Phase 5: Autonomous Inspections
Operators must have knowledge of the machine, its features and functions. So educating
and training the operators is a major activity in lubricating standard. This thorough
approach increases the chances of detecting hidden defects, abnormal vibration, noise,
odor and overheating, and also ensures corrective actions against these problems.
Autonomous maintenance activity has two aims which are as follows:
a. From human perspective, it fosters the development of knowledgeable
operators in the light of their newly defined role.
b. From equipment perspective, it establishes an orderly shop floor where
any departure from normal conditions may be detected at a glance.
To recognize and respond to this fact, TPM uses the term ‘operator’ instead of
‘worker’. Autonomous maintenance starts with the identification of causes of losses.
Primarily, they are equipment breakdowns. Quality defects are also caused by the
problems with equipment, especially in an automated plant. Furthermore, equipment
is designed, fabricated, installed, operated and maintained by human beings. From
this standpoint, it may be acknowledged that losses also result from human thought
patterns and behavior.
Therefore, without dramatic changes in our conventional way of thinking, zero
breakdowns and zero defects can never be achieved.The attitude most acutely required
of today’s manufacturers is an innovative approach that produces breakthrough
countermeasures. The purpose of TPM is to achieve these ends, which result in the
thorough improvement of existing equipment and to effect changes in future
equipment and products by experiences gained and lessons acquired throughout the
process.
To achieve the zero breakdowns concept, autonomous maintenance is a must. It
can be achieved by adopting the following steps.
1. Autonomous maintenance standards
• Setting the autonomous maintenance standards and scheduling to finalize
activities focused on equipment.
• Faithfully conduct routine maintenance in accordance with standards.
• Move forward aiming at zero breakdowns.
2. Process quality assurance
• Prevent outflow of defective products.
• Prevent manufacturing of defective products.
• Attain process quality assurance and move forward aiming at zero defects.
48 The IUP Journal of Mechanical Engineering, Vol. VI, No. 3, 2013
 3. Autonomous supervision
• Maintain, improve and pass on current TPM levels.
Kaizen improves the work and working method of each employee. After following
all the phases highlighted above, operators encounter chronic forced deterioration.
At this step, it becomes necessary to implement Kaizen to overcome the problems.
Kaizen is implemented to enhance the safety of working conditions, to protect the
equipment, and to improve the working methodology, quality of the product and
productivity. Table 8 highlights the Kaizen implementation to vertical boring machine.

Table 8: Kaizen Implemented to Machine

S. No. Problem Causes Remedies Results
1. Belt tension varies. Belt on pulley is Hole with glass Belt tension can be
invisible. fitting made to see monitored as it is
the belt position. seen from outside.
2. Removal of chips is Gap between guard Chip flow plates are Removal of chip is
very difficult. and chuck is very circular and fitted in very easy.
small. sloping position
around the table of
the chuck.
3. Chips are scattered No provision of the Provision of tray is Chips directly
on machine area. chip collection tray. made to collect the collected into the
chips. tray.
4. Chips may harm No guard to protect A guard is placed Protection of
operator. operator from around the chuck. operator from chips
chips. by providing the
guard.

Phase 6: Analysis and Evaluation of Kaizen Through OEE After

TPM Implementation
After implementing TPM successfully, fuguai identified, fuguai attended and balance
fuguai are tabulated and presented in Table 9. It is observed that after implementing
TPM the problems are successfully eliminated. It reduces from 60 h to 11 h per
month after TPM.
In this case, 11 h are considered as total breakdown time per month compared to
60 h of breakdown time before implementation of TPM. In this case, 11 h are
considered for calculation of availability and OEE from Table 9.
OEE is calculated as follows. The operation is carried out on shift basis. Two shifts
per day, every shift being of 8 h.

Implementation of Kaizen Techniques in TPM 49

 Table 9: Fuguai Status After TPM
Fuguai Identified Fuguai Attended Balance Fuguai
in Hours in Hours in Hours
Mechanical

Mechanical

Mechanical
Electronics

Electronics

Electronics
Electrical

Electrical

Electrical
Days

Total

Total

Total
1 1 1 0 2 1 1 – 2 – – – –
2 1 0 0 1 1 – – 1 – – – –
3 2 1 1 4 1 1 1 3 1 – – 1
4 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 – – – –
5 1 0 0 1 1 – – 1 – – – –
6 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 – – – –
7 1 2 0 3 1 2 – 3 – – – –
8 1 0 1 2 1 – – 1 – – 1 1
9 0 1 0 1 – 1 – 1 – – – –
10 0 1 1 2 – 1 1 2 – – – –
11 1 0 1 2 1 – 1 2 – – – –
12 1 0 0 1 1 – – 1 – – – –
13 0 1 0 1 – 1 – 1 – – – –
14 0 0 0 0 – – – – – – – –
15 1 0 0 1 1 – – 1 – – – –
16 0 1 0 1 – 1 – 1 – – – –
17 0 0 0 0 – – – – – – – –
18 0 1 0 1 – 1 – 1 – – – –
19 0 0 0 0 – – – – – – – –
20 1 0 1 2 – – – – 1 – 1 2
21 1 1 1 3 1 – 1 2 – 1 – 1
22 2 1 1 4 1 1 1 3 1 – – 1
23 0 1 1 2 – – 1 1 – 1 – 1
24 2 1 2 5 1 – 1 2 1 1 1 3
25 1 2 1 4 1 1 1 3 – 1 – 1
Total 19 17 13 49 15 13 10 38 04 04 03 11

50 The IUP Journal of Mechanical Engineering, Vol. VI, No. 3, 2013

 • Working days in a month = 25 days
• Running time per day = 16 h
• Running time per month = 16  25 = 400 h
• Planned down time per shift = 15 min
• Planned downtime per day = 30 min
• Planned downtime per month = 12 ½ h
• Setup and adjustment losses per day = 30 min
• Setup and adjustment losses per month = 12 ½ h
• Loading time per day = (Running time – planned down
time)
= (16 – ½ ) = 15½ h
• Loading time per month = 400 –12½ = 387½ h
• Operating time per day = Running time – (planned
downtime + setup and
adjustment losses + breakdown
time)
= 16 – (½ + ½ +½)
= 14½ h
• Operating time per month = 400 – (12½+12½+11* )
= 364 h
*Breakdown time in a month = 11 h (From the Table
No. 9)
• Operating time per year = 364  12
= 4368 h
• Downtime during the year June 2005 = 11  12 = 132 h
-May 2006
• Loading time per year = 387½  12 = 4650 h

Operating time
Availability = Loading time

= 4368/4650 = 94%
Implementation of Kaizen Techniques in TPM 51
 As a result of TPM, the value of availability increases from 60% to 94%.
Performance Efficiency
• Design time for machine to = 5½ h
complete job
• Actual time to complete the job = 5.5 h
Design time ideal cycle time 
• Speed efficiency = Actual cycle time

5.3
=  0.963
5.5
• These losses occur due to machine running at lower speed than the designed
speed because of vibration, improper maintenance, etc.
Processed amount  Actual cycle time
• Rate efficiency = Operation time

2 6
=  84%
14 12

These losses occur due to idle and minor stoppages, etc.

Performance efficiency = Speed efficiency  Rate
efficiency
= 0.963  0.84 = 80%
Processed amount  Defective amount
Rate of quality = Processed amount

There were no rejected products; however, approximately 2% losses

occurred due to rework.
Rate of quality = 98%
Based on the data, evaluation of OEE is presented as follows:
OEE = Availability  Performance
efficiency  Rate of quality
= 0.94  0.80  0.98
= 73.6%
Breakdown time reduces from 315 h to 132 h per year.The reduction in breakdown
time increases the availability and OEE. OEE of machine increases from 59% to
52 The IUP Journal of Mechanical Engineering, Vol. VI, No. 3, 2013
73.6% after TPM. Implementation of TPM enhances OEE by 14.6%. This shows the
effect of TPM.

4. Results and Discussion

Table 9 shows that fuguai identified, attended and balance after the implementation
of TPM are 49, 38 and 11 h, respectively. Comparatively, these values had decreased
from 112, 52 and 60 h, before TPM, as presented in Table 10. This shows very clearly
the role of Kaizen with TPM, which also further enhances the OEE of a machine.
Table 10: Breakdown Status of Boring Machine AfterTPM
S. No. Month Breakdown in Hours
1. June 20
2. July 18
3. August 11
4. September 7
5. October 5
6. November 3
7. December 2
8. January 2
9. February 4
10. March 3
11. April 2
12. May 2

After the successful implementation of TPM to a vertical boring machine,

performance rate and quality rate increased. Finally, OEE increased from 59% to
73.6%. After TPM, the breakdown status of machine got drastically reduced.
Reduction in breakdown hours every month is presented in Table 10. Reduction in
breakdown hours from 20 h in the month of June to 2 h in the month of April shows
very good improvement with the implementation of TPM. Tables 9 and 10 illustrate
the status of fuguai and reduction in breakdown status, respectively.

Conclusion
TPM improves the machine utilization, operator’s morale and productivity. It reduces
the breakdown hours, and at the same time improves the availability, performance
efficiency and also quality. These are the parameters which directly influence the status
of OEE. Kaizen plays a major role in improving the productivity and hence the profit.
In this case, a planned and autonomous maintenance system was developed. As a
result, it was observed that breakdowns in boring machine reduced to 2 h and OEE
of a boring machine increased from 59% to 73.6%. This highlights the importance of
Kaizen to manufacturing industries.
Implementation of Kaizen Techniques in TPM 53
References
1. Chandra S and Krishna M G (1998), “TPM Implementation in Indian Industries”,
Journal of Indian Management, Vol. 37, No. 3, pp. 17-27.
2. Dal B and Yamashima H (2000), “Overall Equipment Effectiveness as a Measure
for Operational Improvement”, International Journal of Operations and Productions
Management, Vol. 20, No. 12, pp. 1488-1502.
3. Goto F (1989a), “Adopting Total Productive Maintenance”, Production and
Inventory Management Journal, 2nd Quarter, pp. 32-36.
4. Goto F (1989b), “Maintenance Prevention”, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 7, pp. 71-94.
5. Hartmann E H (1992), Successfully Installing TPM in a Non-Japanese Plant, TPM
Press, Pittsburgh.
6. Hussein N (1993), “A Road Map for the Implementation of TPM in a
Semiconductor Manufacturing Operations”, Proceedings of the International
Semiconductor Manufacturing Science Symposium, pp. 89-97.
7. Jacobs J H and Powell (2003), “Characterization of Operational time Variability
using Effective Process Time”, IEEE Transactions on Semiconductor Manufacturing,
Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 511-520 and 84-97.
8. Kaizen (1997), Focused Equipment Improvement for TPM Teams, Productivity Press,
Portland.
9. Miyake D I and Enkawa (1995), “Improving Manufacturing Systems Performance”,
Journal of Total Quality Management, Vol. 6, pp. 345-363.
10. Mohenti R P and Lakhe R R (2000), Handbook of Total Quality Management, Jaico
Publishing House, Mumbai.
11. Nakajima S (1988), Introduction to TPM, Productivity Press, Cambridge.
12. Patterson J W and Hendrick (1996), “Adopting Total Productive Maintenance”,
Production and Inventory Management Journal, 4th Quarter, pp. 32-36.
13. Sattler L and Schlueter R (1998), “Semiconductor Metrics: Conflicting Goals
or Increasing Opportunities”, Proceedings of the IEEE/SEMI Advanced
Semiconductor Manufacturing Conference, pp. 55-60.
14. Suzuki T (1992), New Directions for TPM, Productivity Press, Cambridge, MA.
15. Yamashima H (2000), “Challenge to World Class Manufacturing”, International
Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 132-143.

Reference # 60J-2013-08-03-01

54 The IUP Journal of Mechanical Engineering, Vol. VI, No. 3, 2013

Copyright of IUP Journal of Mechanical Engineering is the property of IUP Publications and
its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.