November 2, 2009 10:43 WSPC/180-JAMS 00169

Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Systems

Vol. 8, No. 2 (2009) 117–136

c World Scientific Publishing Company

A MODEL FOR THE TOTAL PRODUCTIVE

MANUFACTURING ASSESSMENT
AND IMPLEMENTATION

DEVDAS SHETTY∗,§ , AHAD ALI†,¶

and JOHN J. CHAPDELAINE‡
∗Dean, College of Engineering

Lawrence Technological University

21000 W Ten Mile Road, Southfield
Michigan 48075, USA
†Department of Mechanical Engineering
Lawrence Technological University
21000 W Ten Mile Road, Southfield
Michigan 48075, USA
‡College of Engineering, Technology and Architecture
University of Hartford
West Hartford, CT 06117, USA
§shetty@ltu.edu
¶aali@ltu.edu

This research presents a comprehensive investigation of the implementation of Total

Productive Manufacturing (TPM) in major US industries and assesses the status of
its implementation. The identification and categorization of the key characteristics of a
TPM implementation are developed. An extensive survey was developed and conducted
that allows companies to identify how they fit within the TPM philosophy and the way
they highlight areas for improvement. Based on the survey, a new methodology to imple-
ment TPM was developed. This procedure builds upon traditional TPM procedures and
equipment selection tools and further adds non-traditional tools. Value Stream Mapping
was added to improve understanding of material flow in the manufacturing process. Fail-
ure Mode and Effects Criticality Analysis (FMECA) procedures introduced equipment
reliability and probability of failure into the selection process. The comprehensive TPM
methodology was demonstrated as a visual tool entitled, TPM Decision Matrix. The
tool allows selection tradeoffs of various resources that are available in the industry.
The methodology was tested in industry through a TPM implementation. The results
showed that the equipment effectiveness in the company has improved by the new TPM
results. The results also include several other major recommendations that have signifi-
cant potential for enhancing factory effectiveness.

Keywords: Total Productive Manufacturing; TPM; Overall Equipment Effectiveness;

OEE.

1. Introduction
Implementing Total Productive Manufacturing (TPM) is a time consuming effort
that requires dedicated resources and focused planning in order to be successful.

117
November 2, 2009 10:43 WSPC/180-JAMS 00169

118 D. Shetty, A. Ali & J. J. Chapdelaine

This implementation effort typically takes three to five years to stabilize and become
a part of the company culture. It would be worthwhile for a company to be able to
identify where they are along the TPM roadmap. This will allow the company to
identify what progress has been made towards a future TPM implementation and
what activities are still required. A simple assessment was developed to determine
how a company matches up to what is commonly viewed as important in a successful
TPM implementation.1,2

1.1. Data gathering

There are seven categories that represent the main themes of TPM. These categories
and subcategories are as follows:
(1) Corporate Picture
(a) Metrics
(b) Culture
(c) Top Management/Goals/Programs
(2) Maintenance Activates
(a) Preventative Maintenance (PM)
(b) Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS)
(c) Improvement
(d) Maintenance Management
(3) Lean Enterprise
(a) 5S
(b) Standards/Standard Work
(c) Visual Controls
(d) Root Cause Analysis/Problem Solving
(e) Single Minute Exchange of Dies (SMED)
(4) Training/Certification
(a) Training
(b) Certification
(5) People/Teams
(a) Teams
(b) Operator
(c) Recognition
(d) Union
(6) Equipment
(a) New Equipment
(7) TPM Currently in Place
(a) Autonomous Maintenance
(b) General
November 2, 2009 10:43 WSPC/180-JAMS 00169

A Model for the Total Productive Manufacturing Assessment and Implementation 119

Seventy-two survey questions were developed and listed according to the cate-
gories. These questions are directed towards the person completing the assessment
survey and represent the core aspects of TPM. To standardize the responses, each
question was given multiple choice answers whenever possible. The answers are
meant to provide insight into how closely the survey taker’s company follows com-
mon TPM practices. Comments section was provided next to each question in case
the respondent wanted to provide additional information. To develop a measure-
ment of their responses, a survey response rating system was developed.1,3–5

1.2. Execution of survey

Each survey question answer was given a numeric value based on a target of 100.
This number was based on how the question and the response were related to a
successful TPM implementation or best practice. This was determined based on
facts derived from the text research, and by the repetition of key facts found in the
notes. Responses that supported a TPM implementation were given a rating closer
to 100, while responses that went against TPM practices were rated closer to 0.
Some questions where a written- or opinion-based response was required were not
given a numeric value; these responses were for information purposes only. Some
questions were answered as “Yes/No/Don’t Know”. The “Yes” answer was given a
score of 100, while the “No” and “Don’t Know” was given a score of 0. Each survey
was then tallied to determine the total value of the responses, which provided a
final survey grade. A scoring sheet was presented to assist with scoring future sur-
veys. To baseline the survey for both strong TPM and weak TPM-based responses,
the survey was completed by the author with both extreme sets of answers and a
final grade determined for each. For a completely positive, strong TPM response, a
total score of 6554 is possible. For a completely negative, a total score of 40 is possi-
ble for weak TPM response. The baseline survey responses are presented in Table 1.

1.3. Survey results

The survey was fielded to three New England candidate companies to understand if
it was a practical tool for evaluating if TPM would be a viable fit. Each respondent’s

Table 1. TPM response baselines.

Positive TPM Response Negative TPM Response

Category Category Score Category Category Score
Corporate Picture 1179 Corporate Picture 20
Maintenance Activities 1415 Maintenance Activities 20
Lean Enterprise 1200 Lean Enterprise 0
Training/Certification 840 Training/Certification 0
People/Teams 820 People/Teams 0
Equipment 300 Equipment 0
TPM Program 800 TPM Program 0
Total Possible Score 6554 Total Possible Score 40
November 2, 2009 10:43 WSPC/180-JAMS 00169

120 D. Shetty, A. Ali & J. J. Chapdelaine

Table 2. Assessment score comparison.

Category Score
Category Negative Shanklin Adcole ABC Manufacturing Positive
Corporate Picture 20 224 275 586 1179
Maintenance Activities 20 103 387.5 616 1415
Lean Enterprise 0 220 0 245 1200
Training/Certification 0 0 0 80 840
People/Teams 0 205 200 260 820
Equipment 0 0 100 100 300
TPM Program 0 0 0 160 800
Total Possible Score 40 752 962.5 2047 6554

survey was scored and the results tallied for each category as well as a total score.
The complete Survey responses from each company are included. The data was
compared to the Negative and Positive baseline information, and is presented in
Table 2.
The responses fall between the lowest (negative) and highest (positive) scores,
with significant growth potential in all categories. Some basic information can be
derived from this data, which provides insight into the current state of manufac-
turing in New England and possibly the United States. However, the small sample
size of the results does not represent the true potential response population, and
further work is necessary to gather enough data for a statistical study. It is clear
from the data that the highest score, 2047 from ABC Manufacturing, is still less
than one-third of the potential high score. Therefore, significant room for improve-
ment in all areas is available for these organizations to follow TPM principles. Lean
Enterprise, with its several sub-categories, is also lacking as a foundation in these
companies. ABC Manufacturing is a leader in Lean methodologies in Connecticut,
yet still has opportunity to grow its Lean culture versus what is defined as best
practices in the researched texts. The most surprising result is the almost complete
lack of Training and Certification for operators and maintenance personnel in the
companies surveyed. A solid TPM program relies on training as its cornerstone to
improve skills and foster the transfer of maintenance tasks from the mechanic to
the operator. A lack of progress or commitment to training and certification shows
that TPM will struggle due to a lack of maintenance skills and expertise. Also, the
TPM Pillar of Autonomous Maintenance will be impossible to implement without
a properly trained workforce.6,7

2. Development of Improved TPM Implementation Methodology

The next phase of this research work was the development of an improved TPM
Implementation Methodology, specifically in the area of identifying equipment for
improvement. The research indicated that the previous work in this area of equip-
ment selection was quite limited. Additional investigation and documentation of
these steps, including the addition of other, occasionally referenced tools, would
November 2, 2009 10:43 WSPC/180-JAMS 00169

A Model for the Total Productive Manufacturing Assessment and Implementation 121

benefit the TPM methodology. To demonstrate the effectiveness of this improved

methodology, a target company in the industry was selected for implementation.8
The beginning of a TPM implementation requires several steps to ensure that
the correct project is selected and that the correct information and resources are
available. Each step is important since they build a foundation for TPM to be
supported by management, maintenance, and the operators. Without support and
dedication from these three groups, true long-lasting improvements will be difficult
to introduce and maintain in production. The following steps were used for this
project.

(a) Management Involvement

(b) TPM Coordinator Selection
(c) Baseline Current State
(d) Mapping
(e) Value Stream Map (Non-traditional)
(f) Criticality Analysis (Non-traditional)
(g) TPM-Specific Selection Factors
(h) Select Target Machine
(i) Team Selection
(j) TPM Training
(k) First Project Implementation Kaizen

Companies may choose to include more steps in their implementation if they

wish. This project focused on the implementation of a startup TPM program in a
target company, ABC Manufacturing Company, with the main purpose of showing
how TPM would have an initial, significant, visible impact on machine reliability
and availability. An initial manufacturing cell was chosen for improvement. This
“model cell” would then be used as an example to build the TPM program through
the rest of the company. Other TPM implementations often focus on building the
TPM infrastructure prior to making improvements. The analysis of your corporate
culture, plant climate, levels of skill and education, degree of motivation and, in
particular, the needs of your equipment and production will determine your instal-
lation strategy.3 This method is also successful, but does not fit as well with the
Kaizen team approach used at ABC Manufacturing.
To provide an overview of the method used to begin the TPM implementation at
ABC Manufacturing, each step listed above will be discussed, with particular detail
provided on the non-traditional TPM tools of Value Stream Mapping, Criticality
Analysis, and Other Selection Factors.9,10

2.1. Management involvement

A common theme in implementing any new methodology within a company links
management involvement with success. A high level of support from upper manage-
ment can often lead to increased awareness about the project, appropriate resources
November 2, 2009 10:43 WSPC/180-JAMS 00169

122 D. Shetty, A. Ali & J. J. Chapdelaine

available when required, adequate funding provided, and assistance to eliminate

roadblocks.

2.2. TPM coordinator selection

The key person responsible for the startup and success of a TPM implementation
is the TPM Coordinator. Depending on the size of the company, TPM will be
this person’s sole responsibility. However, this task is often shared with other job
responsibilities.

2.3. Baseline current state

It is often difficult to determine which equipment should be chosen to start the
improvement activities. This decision can be influenced by a general opinion of the
performance of the equipment, or through data on production performance. It is
better to eliminate subjective influence in the decision making process and rely on
actual data. Prior to starting improvement activities, it is important to obtain data
on the current state of the maintenance and production activities. This should be
conducted throughout the entire department.

2.4. Computerized maintenance management system

As machines are repaired and preventative maintenance performed, the data related
to these activities is useful to understand the overall condition of the equipment.
This data can be recorded and tracked in various ways, through paper-based doc-
umentation, through a computer-based tracking system known as a Computerized
Maintenance Management System (CCMS), or in some cases not tracked at all.
The latter is obviously the worst case scenario requiring that some interim tracking
be conducted to obtain basic information.

2.5. Production data

An initial step in selecting the best manufacturing cell or a piece of equipment to
start a TPM program is the collection of production data. This allows the equipment
production requirements and product values to be included in the decision. Items
that can be considered for this analysis are:
• Production Requirements
• Daily Runtime
• Production Value (dollars per month, dollars per hour)
• Machine setup time (average)
• Machine downtime (look at data over past 6 months or more)
— # of hours vs. required production time
— % downtime
— Reasons for downtime, if available
November 2, 2009 10:43 WSPC/180-JAMS 00169

A Model for the Total Productive Manufacturing Assessment and Implementation 123

• Defects
— # of defective parts
• Machine Scrap
— % of raw material that goes to scrap
• 5S
Typically, an analysis of production data is based on dollar value, whether it
is the value of parts produced or the lost value due to downtime or scrap. This is
quite easy to calculate and this information is usually readily available.

2.6. Mapping
A common step in project selection is mapping to identify key process steps. A high-
level view of the area in question shows material flow and equipment and resource
allocation. This is useful from a flow perspective; however this type of map lacks
the detail necessary for a truly data driven decision making. Information such as
material and information flow, cycle time, customer requirements, inventory levels,
machine availability, and downtime all play a part in choosing which cell or piece
of equipment requires the most improvement. This information can be gathered
through the creation of a Value Stream Map.

2.7. Value stream mapping

Value Stream Maps are common in Lean Enterprise, but uncommon in TPM. Typ-
ically, a Value Stream Map is used to understand information and material flow
from the raw material supplier, through the manufacturing plant, out through dis-
tribution to the final end user or consumer. It looks at the flow from the per-
spective of what is required to make the product, not just what machines are
installed in each department. Looking at the manufacturing environment from the
product view shows how each step in the process can impact the ability to meet
the customer’s needs. In the case of a TPM implementation, this can be used to
show the importance of each piece of equipment in relation to meeting customers’
need.
To assist with the TPM-specific use of the Value Stream Map, include equipment
related information such as downtime, defect percentage, and the value of product
per month. As the TPM program gains popularity in the company you will be able
to track TPM specific data such as Overall Equipment Effectiveness, Performance
Efficiency, and Percent Availability. For the TPM Value Stream Map, it is advisable
to spend additional time observing the equipment’s operation, common problems,
and general appearance. These are key indicators that can be used during the target
equipment selection step of TPM implementation. However, do not forget that the
overall equipment effectiveness is determined by how the equipment runs within its
environment, and changes to the flow of material and information to and from the
equipment or cell may be necessary to improve its effectiveness.
November 2, 2009 10:43 WSPC/180-JAMS 00169

124 D. Shetty, A. Ali & J. J. Chapdelaine

2.8. Simplified TPM value stream map

Since TPM is concerned mainly with the availability and effectiveness of equipment,
it is not particularly useful to include information outside of the main manufacturing
steps in the decision process of where to start the TPM implementation. These less
critical steps include the path of raw material and finished product, and product
shipment and distribution. To simplify the Value Stream Map to focus on the critical
steps for manufacturing, a modified Value Stream Map is created that includes
the equipment in each cell being considered. Upstream and downstream processes
are included if they contribute to the availability of the equipment, such as raw
material availability. The data for ABC Manufacturing was limited in scope to two
manufacturing cells, from the raw material after it arrived in the plant, and through
to finished packed product. Example Simplified Value Stream Maps are presented in
Figs. 1 and 2. This information was available in the process map presented before;
however it did not include all of the other information available in the Value Stream
Map.
Additional information not commonly seen in a standard process map includes
the location and amount of inventory, process information such as cycle time, takt
time, the number of shifts, and value of product per month. It also shows the flow
of information into the cell in the form of a kanban signal, or card that shows
what product to make next and in what quantity. At the bottom of the map,
production lead time is shown for each piece of inventory, and processing or value
added time shown for each process step. The total production lead time and value
added time is presented at the bottom right of the map. The use of the Value Stream

Value Stream Map: Press A Cell

2358 Cell
12500 pcs/day
2 Shifts
Kanban signal

Press In Line Paint Big

l 2358 Tapper l Line Shanklin

13 Coils
$681,500/mo Output: 2 parts at one time 400 C/T:5580 s 512
of steel
(3900
$.263/s C/T: 35 spm, .85 s/part parts WIP: 350 parts
parts/coil) C/T: 35 spm, 1.7 s/part T/T: 4.3 s/part parts
T/T: 4.3 s/part
C/O:47 min
Down Time/day: 22 min
Shifts: 2
Production Lead Time
233626 s 2765 s 3539 s 3999 min
1.7 s 5580 s Processing Time
93 min

Fig. 1. Press A value stream map.

November 2, 2009 10:43 WSPC/180-JAMS 00169

A Model for the Total Productive Manufacturing Assessment and Implementation 125

Value Stream Map: Press B Cell

214 Cell
18500 pcs/day
Kanban signal 2 Shifts

Press Cleveland
l 214 l Tapper l
10 Parts
5 Coils
$1,060,000/mo Output: 4 parts at one time 27140
of steel $.409/s C/T: .23 s/part Parts
C/T: 65 spm, .9 s/part (Rect Base
T/T: 2.95 s/part Only)
C/O:16.5 min
Down Time/day: 37 min
Shifts: 1

Production Lead Time

161280 s 31 s 84500 s 4096 min
.9 s .23 s
Processing Time
.019 min

Fig. 2. Press B value stream map.

methodology enhances the overall data organization and presentation. The layout
of these two Value Stream Maps makes side-by-side comparisons of each cell much
easier. Providing data during the selection process reduces the likelihood that the
final choice will be based on subjective opinion, instead of relying on manufacturing
facts. The Simplified Value Stream Map not only reduces the time required to gather
data for improved project selection, but also keeps the TPM team focused on what
is important to meeting the customer needs as it relates to equipment availability.

2.9. Equipment selection using simplified value stream map

The goal for using Value Stream Mapping in a TPM implementation program is to
prioritize which machines require attention first. For the examples provided above,
the decision can be made based on any of the factors where data was gathered and
presented. Does the cycle time matches the customer requirement or takt time? If
the cycle time is greater than the takt time, then an opportunity exists to make
machine improvements or reduce waste, such as stoppages or breakdowns. However,
if the cycle time is less than the takt time, this is an opportunity to slow the
equipment down which may result in less wear and better use of the available
time for equipment maintenance. Excess inventory or high lead times often point
to bottlenecks in the process which could be caused by unpredictable equipment.
Inventory is increased to compensate when equipment is broken down and not
available. Eliminating the problem with the equipment may allow inventories to be
November 2, 2009 10:43 WSPC/180-JAMS 00169

126 D. Shetty, A. Ali & J. J. Chapdelaine

Table 3. Value stream selection data.

Selection Criteria Cell B Cell A
Lead Time 4096 min 3999 min
Production Time 0.019 min 93 min
Cycle Time 0.9 sec 1.7 sec
Takt Time 2.95 sec 4.3 sec
Change Over Time 16.5 min 47 min
# of Shifts 2 2
Down Time/day 37 min 22 min
$/month $1,060,000/mo $681,500/mo
Child Processes 3 1

reduced. The “cleaning as inspection” step of TPM will find these areas and begin
to reduce defect levels. A comparison of the two examples shows that there are some
distinct differences between the performances of the cells in the areas measured up
to this point. This is compared in Table 3.
Using Production Data alone as an indicator of where to start TPM is based
mainly on dollar value. However, this later comparison using Value Stream pro-
vides more information to judge cell performance in the form of Lead Time, Cycle
Time versus Takt Time, Change-Over Time, as well as the visual impact of flow
in the cells. Up to this point there is enough information to be able to make an
informed decision on which machine to start the TPM implementation. However,
if more information is needed it is useful to understand the likelihood of a machine
breakdown and what impact it will have on the cell it is in. This can be determined
through a Criticality Analysis.

3. Failure Mode and Effects Criticality Analysis (FMECA)

A tool used in product and process development which started in the automotive
industry and which has grown into more widespread use is the Failure Mode and
Effects Analysis. This methodology considers each design feature or process step,
and asks how they might fail and what the potential causes for these failures are.
This tool has been modified slightly to consider the components that make up a
machine or manufacturing cell, what the likelihood of failure is and the impact this
has upon manufacturing. This high level or macro view of the equipment provides
additional insight for choosing which equipment to start with TPM. The method-
ology name changes to FMECA, or Failure Mode and Effects Criticality Analysis.
FMECA is a technique used to identify, prioritize, and eliminate potential failures
from the system, design or process before they reach the customer.11 The FMECA
process follows a series of steps in order, with data entered into a predefined table.
The steps are as follows:

(a) Identify each piece of equipment being considered

(b) Define each piece of equipment’s function
(c) Define the functional failure(s)
November 2, 2009 10:43 WSPC/180-JAMS 00169

A Model for the Total Productive Manufacturing Assessment and Implementation 127

(d) Define the failure mode(s)

(e) Define the effect(s) of each failure.
(f) Define Severity “S” of each effect
(g) Define Occurrence “O”
(h) Calculate Criticality “C = S ∗ O”
The FMECA table is filled out for all pieces of equipment and their functions.
As mentioned previously, it is helpful to include the maintenance department in
this exercise to improve the accuracy of the ratings. This process was completed
for the work cells in question at ABC Manufacturing. Decisions and ratings were
based on inspection of the equipment and maintenance data obtained from their
computerized maintenance system as well as through conversations with the main-
tenance mechanics in the department. Also, a review of the spare parts inventory
for various pieces of equipment allowed the maintenance repair time, reflected in
the Severity score, to be adjusted based on availability and lead time. Table 4 shows
the completed FMECA table for the Metallic ABC Department. Criticality Level
scores were color coded to provide urgency levels to assist with prioritizing which
equipment to focus on first.
Based on the results of the FMECA study, the Press A cell was identified as
requiring corrective action the most due to a high number of 4 and 5 Criticality
Level ratings, as well as the only level 6 rating. A review of the maintenance log
data showed a very high failure rate of the Press Control due to reset issues and
electrical failures, which resulted in the 6 rating. This analysis recommended that
immediate action be taken in the form of maintenance and TPM activity to improve
the current condition of the cell.
Other factors can be considered during the process of selecting where to start the
TPM implementation, and are a part of the TPM process itself. These include
the general physical appearance of the equipment and TPM observation data in
the form of Overall Equipment Effectiveness ratings.

4. Overall Equipment Effectiveness

4.1. TPM-specific selection factors
The TPM process is focused on improving the reliability and availability of equip-
ment. To better understand what the beginning state of the equipment is before
making improvements, it is important to baseline the equipment condition from
both an appearance and performance standpoint. Base lining the appearance is a
straightforward process of taking photos of the “before” state of the equipment
before any cleaning or improvements are made.
Base lining the performance of the equipment is the next step in the TPM
process. This involves conducting an observation of the equipment and documenting
all causes for non-production, and calculating the Overall Equipment Effectiveness,
or OEE. The use of Overall Equipment Effectiveness is more representative of what
 128
Table 4. FMECA matrix for metallic ABC department.

Equipment Function Potential Failure Mode Effect of Failure Severity Occurrence Criticality Action
Functional S O (= S + O) Plan
Failure
Press 2358 Payout Steel Coil free-wheels or Brake failure Press Shutdown 0 1 1 8
locks
Straighten Steel Coil not Motor failure Press Shutdown 0 1 1
straightened
Feed Steel Does not feed steel Servo feed fails Press Shutdown 1 1 2
Control failure Press Shutdown 1 1 2
Stamp Part Does not stamp Main motor failure Press Shutdown 2 2 4
part
Press Control Press Shutdown 1 5 6
November 2, 2009 10:43 WSPC/180-JAMS

D. Shetty, A. Ali & J. J. Chapdelaine

failure
Stamps part Tooling Problem Bad Product 0 2 2
incorrectly
Press setup Bad Product 0 2 2
problem
00169

Tap Part Does not tap part Motor Failure Press Shutdown 1 3 4
Taps 1 or less holes Broken tap or tap Bad Product 1 4 5
sensor
Paint Line Convey Part Does not convey Main drive failure Paintline Shutdown 0 3 3 4
parts
Clean Part Parts not cleaned Spray system Bad Product 1 3 4
failure
Electrostatically Does not paint Failure of spray Bad Product 1 2 3
Paint Part part controller
Poor paint Lack of ground to Bad Product 2 2 4
application part
Dry Part @ X Paint does not dry Oven failure Bad Product 1 2 3
Degrees
 Table 4. (Continued )

Equipment Function Potential Failure Mode Effect of Failure Severity Occurrence Criticality Action
Functional S O (= S + O) Plan
Failure
Big Shanklin Produce Klikloc Kliklok trays not Machine drive Shanklin shut down 2 2 4 5
Trays produced failure
Machine setup Shanklin shut down 2 3 5
problem
Convey Parts Parts not conveyed Drive failure Shanklin shut down 1 2 3
Wrap parts in Parts not wrapped Machine setup Bad Product 1 3 4
Plastic Wrap problem
Material problem Bad Product 1 3 4
Heat Low or no heat Heater failure Bad Product 1 1 2
Shrink/Seal applied
November 2, 2009 10:43 WSPC/180-JAMS

Tape Box No tape applied Feed system failure Bad Product 1 1 2

Press 214 Payout Steel Coil free-wheels or Brake failure Press Shutdown 0 1 1 5
locks
Straighten Steel Coil not Motor Failure Press Shutdown 1 2 3
00169

straightened
Feed Steel Does not feed steel Servo feed fails Press Shutdown 1 1 2
Control failure Press Shutdown 1 1 2
Stamp Part Does not stamp Main motor failure Press Shutdown 2 2 4
part
Press Control Press Shutdown 1 4 5
failure
Stamps part Tooling Problem Bad Product 0 2 2
incorrectly
Press setup Bad Product 0 2 2
problem
Cleveland Convey Part Does not convey Main drive failure Press Shutdown 1 2 3 5
Tapper parts
Tap Part (4 at Does not tap part Machine failure Press Shutdown 1 2 3
a time)
A Model for the Total Productive Manufacturing Assessment and Implementation

Does not tap all Broken tap or tap Bad Product 2 3 5

holes sensor
129
November 2, 2009 10:43 WSPC/180-JAMS 00169

130 D. Shetty, A. Ali & J. J. Chapdelaine

is truly happening in manufacturing than traditional uptime or machine availability

calculations because it includes all reasons why the machine is not producing parts
perfectly 100% of the time.
The standard method for calculating OEE was employed for this exercise, as
defined in Successfully Installing TPM in a Non-Japanese Plant.3 An automated
spreadsheet was developed based on the existing methods, and is shown in Fig. 3
as an example. This calculation is rolled yield, where the final percentage is the
cumulative effect of each part. The equipment is effective at producing parts only
29% of the time it is running. The Overall Equipment Effectiveness was calculated
by the following equation.
OEE = % Availability × % Performance Efficiency × % Rate of Quality
× % Speed Loss
Using this information and the form presented in Fig. 3, the Overall Equipment
Effectiveness was calculated for each cell and presented in Table 5. It shows how
each loss contributes to the overall OEE calculation.

4.2. Final target machine selection

Several different tools were used to gather data to decide which equipment to use for
the TPM implementation. Production Data can be used to understand overall cell
productivity from a high level. Data from the maintenance department and their
computerized maintenance system show more detail of the breakdowns for each
piece of equipment. Process mapping and Value Stream Maps highlight various
bottlenecks and material flow. It also gathers additional information such as cycle
time, takt time, change-over time, inventory levels and lead time. Failure Mode and
Effects Criticality Analysis identifies the probability and severity of breakdowns of
the equipment and assigned a Criticality Level to each. Traditional tools of Total
Productive Manufacturing, namely photo documentation, observation, and Overall
Equipment Effectiveness calculations were used to complete the data gathering
phase. This information is summarized in Fig. 4, the TPM Decision Matrix.17
To create this decision matrix, it is useful to post the information on a wall using
8.5 × 11

paper to document each segment. Photos can be printed onto the same
size paper and provide a visual comparison between the cells. This process should
focus on comparing the data, not on making the information look pretty. Also,
when the selection is complete, it is useful to place the data into separate folders
for each cell or piece of equipment since it can be used during future improvement
activities. With the information presented in this way, an objective decision may
now be made.

4.3. Real-world decisions

As with any business, decisions cannot be made in a vacuum. Real production
requirements often change during the selection process between the time the
OEE Calculation
INSTRUCTIONS: Enter times from the OEE Observation in the yellow highlighted areas.

Time Equipment is Available (24 Hrs * 60 minutes = 1440 minutes) 1440

Total Planned Production Time 1020 minutes
Planned Time Not Running = Time Equipment is Available - Total Planned production Time 420
Lunch 60 minutes
Breaks 0 minutes
Other planned downtime (meetings, etc) 20 minutes

Planned
Training 0 minutes

Downtime
Planned Maintenance 0 minutes
Total Planned Downtime 500

Equipment Utilization
Equipment Running Time = Time Equipment is Available - Total Planned Downtime 940
% Equipment Utilization = Equipment Running Time / Time Equipment is Available 65%

Opportunity
Setup and Adjustment Time 150 minutes
Planned Time Equipment is Available = Equipment Running Time - Setup and Adjustment Time 790

Planned
November 2, 2009 10:43 WSPC/180-JAMS

% Planned Time Equipment is Available = Planned Time Equipment is Available / Equipment Running Time 84%

Availability
Unplanned
Downtime Breakdowns 140 minutes
Net Operating Time = Planned Time Equipment is Available - Breakdowns 650

Uptime
% Uptime = Net Operating Time / Planned Time Equipment is Available 82%
00169

% Availability = % Planned Time Equipment is Available * % Uptime 69%

Unplanned
Idling and Minor Stoppages
Downtime
225 minutes

Efficiency
Performance
Usable Operating Time = Net Operating Time - Idling and Minor Stoppages 425
% Performance Efficiency = Usable Operating Time / Net Operating Time 65%

Lost Time
Time Spent Producing Defective Parts 56 minutes

Quality
Rate of
Run Time = Usable Operating Time - Time Spent Producing Defective Parts 369
% Rate of Quality = (Usable Operating Time - Time Spent Producing Defective Parts)/Usable Operating Time 87%

Speed Loss 75%

% Availability % Performance Efficiency % Rate of Quality % Speed Loss

OEE = 69% X 65% X 87% x 75% = 29%

A Model for the Total Productive Manufacturing Assessment and Implementation
131

Fig. 3. OEE calculation spreadsheet.

November 2, 2009 10:43 WSPC/180-JAMS 00169

132 D. Shetty, A. Ali & J. J. Chapdelaine

Table 5. Overall equipment effectiveness results.

% Availability % Performance % Rate of % Speed

Efficiency Quality Loss
Press B OEE = 42% × 73% × 100% × 77% = 23%
Press A OEE = 72% × 80% × 100% × 100% = 23%

Production Data was gathered and the machine observations were performed. This
occurred during the selection process at ABC Manufacturing. Requirements for
the candidate cell decreased significantly so it was only needed for 1 shift per day.
The increase in available time reduced the requirement to have it available all
the time while the other cell remained at its two shift requirement. Based on this
final piece of information, the second candidate, Press A Cell was chosen by ABC
Manufacturing’s TPM Coordinator as the target machine. The next step in the
TPM implementation process is the selection of the team to begin improvement
activities.

4.4. Team selection

This process starts with selecting the members that will participate in the data
gathering and machine improvement activities. The goal during selection should
not be to create a temporary team, but instead to create a team dedicated to the
continuous improvement of that machine or cell. Their task is to develop a TPM
program, then sustain the initial changes and continue to make advanced improve-
ments which require long range planning. A team established for only one TPM
activity will not have the ownership of the process that is required for long term
success. The ideal team will have members that represent all the areas involved in
a TPM activity: Management, Engineering, Maintenance, and the Operators of the
equipment. After selecting the team, but before beginning the improvement activ-
ities, it is necessary to orient the team members in the basics of Total Productive
Manufacturing. Basic training should be provided to explain the TPM process and
allow team members to speak a common language when working together.

4.5. TPM training

Now that the target machine is selected and the team assigned, the next step
is to provide training for the team on the TPM process and schedule the actual
improvement activity. For this activity, custom training materials were developed
from the data gathered during the initial information review on TPM, as well as
from lean and Just-in Time presentations from ABC Manufacturing.

4.6. Project implementation Kaizen

Once the TPM training was complete, the team could begin the improvements to
the candidate cell. This process was completed in a Kaizen format, with the team
November 2, 2009 10:43 WSPC/180-JAMS 00169

A Model for the Total Productive Manufacturing Assessment and Implementation 133

Fig. 4. TPM decision matrix.

November 2, 2009 10:43 WSPC/180-JAMS 00169

134 D. Shetty, A. Ali & J. J. Chapdelaine

dedicated to working on the problem for four days, with additional support available
as needed. To get the best results during the four days, a series of objectives were
established and presented to the team on the morning of the first day at the kick-off
meeting. The following Kaizen objectives are considered.
• Introduce team members to the basic concepts of TPM through training and
hands-on work
• Develop a TPM “model cell” for ABC Manufacturing
◦ Conduct Initial Cleaning and Inspection/eliminate problems
◦ Improve Equipment

25% Reduction in Change-over time

Improve OEE score by 20%

Reduce cleaning time by 25%

Develop and implement cleaning and lubrication standards
◦ Provide recommendations for future TPM work

4.7. Final improvement measurement

At the end of the event, the final set of measurements were completed to deter-
mine the level of improvements. An Overall Equipment Effectiveness observation
was conducted as the measurement for process improvement. A short production
run was completed when the equipment was turned back on and an OEE Calcu-
lation Form filled out. No significant failures or stoppages were observed, and a
visible difference was seen with the operation of the equipment. The OEE score
was calculated and can be found in Table 6.
This is a 29% improvement over the original measurement. Further measurement
should be conducted over a longer period of time to verify these results, but this
provides an initial indicator of the success of the project. Suggestions for short-
term and long-term TPM work were presented to upper management, which are
the followings.
Short Term
• Organize a small group to continue TPM on Press A
— Operator, Maintenance, Engineer
— Establish meeting time and frequency, get management approval (1–2 hours
per week)

Table 6. OEE calculation comparison.

% Availability % Performance % Rate of % Speed OEE

Efficiency Quality Loss
Before 72% × 80% × 100% × 100% = 57%
After 90% × 95% × 100% × 100% = 86%
November 2, 2009 10:43 WSPC/180-JAMS 00169

A Model for the Total Productive Manufacturing Assessment and Implementation 135

— Develop team charter

— Develop team goals

Short term (1–3 months)

Long term (6–12 months)
• Identify key areas for operator and maintenance training
• Begin operator-involved maintenance (Autonomous Maintenance)
• Additional Kaizen on Press A to complete initial cleaning and repair
— Complete identified improvements
— Begin to track OEE
— Complete Preventative Maintenance
— Continue Spare Parts List and order parts
• Order TPM Defect Tags

Long Term

• Develop operator and maintenance training program and certification

• Address issue of ownership of lubricating machines
— Training to support operator basic inspection and lubrication

5. Conclusions
This research study has examined the key principles behind Total Productive Manu-
facturing through extensive investigation of successful companies. This information
has been organized into categories that define major areas that support TPM in
a corporation. Further, an extensive survey was developed and tested that pro-
vides an understanding of how a company fits with each aspect of TPM and what
improvements might be necessary if they were to implement a TPM program.
A new methodology for selecting equipment for a TPM improvement program
was developed that combines traditional and non-traditional decision tools. Non-
traditional tools that were added to the selection process were Simplified Value
Stream Mapping and Failure Modes and Effects Criticality Analysis (FMECA).
These techniques increase a company’s ability to select which equipment is critical
to production and which has the highest probability of failure. Finally, the pro-
cedures developed in equipment selection were applied to a ABC Manufacturing
company in New England, USA. The results very clearly demonstrated equipment
effectiveness and reliability improvement for the chosen product.

References
1. R. Cummings, A mathematical model to assess lean thinking manufacturing initia-
tives, Masters Thesis, University of Hartford College of Engineering (2004).
2. E. M. Goldratt, The Goal, 2nd ed. (North River Press, Great Barrington, 1992).
November 2, 2009 10:43 WSPC/180-JAMS 00169

136 D. Shetty, A. Ali & J. J. Chapdelaine

3. E. Hartmann, Successfully Installing TPM in a Non-Japanese Plant (TPM Press, Inc,

Pittsburgh, 1992).
4. J. W. Heptinstall and R. Newman, Equipment reliability strategy, Lean Management
and TPM Conference, Orlando, FL., October 2004.
5. R. Herrmann, Maintenance Assessment Survey, Letter to John Chapdelaine, March
2006.
6. J. Kravontka, Maintenance excellence, Lean Management and TPM Conference,
Orlando, FL (2004).
7. A. M. Montgomery, Implementation of lean manufacturing industrial case study, Mas-
ters Thesis, University of Hartford College of Engineering (2000).
8. S. Nakajima, Introduction to TPM (Productivity Press, Cambridge, 1988).
9. Autonomous Maintenance — Shopfloor TPM Implementation, Produced and directed
by Jessica Letteney. 8 tape series. Productivity, Inc., 2000.
10. TPM Practitioner Certification Program Participant Guide. Shelton, CT.: Produc-
tivity Inc., 2004.
11. M. Rausand, System Analysis “Failure Modes, Effects, and Criticality Analysis”, Nor-
wegian University of Science and Technology website, October 7, 2005. Available at
www.ntnu.no/ross/srt/slides/fmeca.pdf.
12. M. Rother and J. Shook, Learning to See, Brookline, MA. The Lean Enterprise Insti-
tute, 1998.
13. K. Shirose and S. Nakajima, TPM for Supervisors (Productivity Press, Portland Ore-
gon, 1992).
14. K. Shirose, TPM for Workshop Leaders (Productivity Press, Cambridge, 1992).
15. 5 C Training, West Hartford, CT. The Raceway Manufacturing Company.
16. R. Williamson, NASCAR racing: Model for teamwork and lean machines, Lean Man-
agement and TPM Conference, Orlando, FL (2004).
17. J. J. Chapdelaine, Total productive manufacturing assessment and implementation,
Masters Thesis, University of Hartford, College of Engineering, Technology and
Architecture.
Copyright of Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Systems is the property of World Scientific Publishing
Company 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.