International Journal of Production Research, 2014

Vol. 52, No. 10, 3032–3051, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2013.860250

A graph theoretic approach to evaluate the intensity of barriers in the implementation of

total productive maintenance (TPM)
Rajesh Attri*, Sandeep Grover and Nikhil Dev

Department of Mechanical Engineering, YMCA University of Science and Technology, Faridabad, India
(Received 16 February 2013; accepted 18 October 2013)

Total productive maintenance (TPM) is an innovative approach to maintenance which holds the potential for enhancing
effectiveness of production facilities. But, implementation of TPM is not an easy task. Innumerable barriers are
encountered in real-life cases during TPM implementation. It is very essential to evaluate the nature and impact of these
barriers so that production and maintenance managers can cultivate some strategies to overcome these barriers. In the
present exertion, a graph theoretic approach has been applied to find the intensity of these barriers through an index
which is computed through a permanent function obtained from the digraph of TPM barriers.
Keywords: total productive maintenance; barriers; GTA; intensity of barriers; IOB

1. Introduction
Modern manufacturing requires that organisations that wish to be successful and to achieve world-class manufacturing
must possess both effective and efficient maintenance. One approach to improve the performance of maintenance
activities is to implement a total productive maintenance (TPM) system (Ahuja and Kumar 2009). TPM can be defined
as an approach to achieve rapid improvement of manufacturing processes by involving and empowering
production-related employees and introducing an ongoing process of quality improvement (Nakajima 1988).
TPM has emerged as an effective strategic improvement initiative for improving quality in maintenance engineering
activities (Ollila and Malmipuro 1999; Pramod, Devadasan, and Raj 2007), while Ahuja and Kumar (2009) described
TPM as a potent means to improve overall company performance. Moreover, Brah and Chang (2004) have discussed
that increased global competition has augmented the importance of TPM in obtaining and maintaining competitive
advantage. TPM brings maintenance into focus as a necessary and vitally important part of the business (Ahuja and
Khamba 2008a). TPM enhances the effectiveness of production facilities that results into improved manufacturing
performance (Dwyer 1999; Dossenbach 2006). TPM implementation results into contribution towards improvement in
organisational behaviour in the manufacturing business transcending world-class competitiveness (Ahuja, Khamba, and
Choudhary 2006).
Several articles have discussed the benefit of TPM implementation (Nakajima 1988; Teresko 1992; Koelsch 1993;
Windle 1993; Hamrick 1994; Willmott 1994; Bohoris et al. 1995; Carannante 1995; Chowdhury 1995; McKone, Roger,
and Cua 1999; Tripathi 2005; Ahuja and Khamba 2007). However, TPM provides a lot of benefits and its implementa-
tion is not an easy task. Cooke (2000) has illustrated that implementing TPM is not an easy task, which is severely
hampered by political, financial, departmental and interoccupational barriers. Attri et al. (2012a) have identified and
analysed the barriers of TPM implementation by interpretive structural modelling (ISM) approach. Panneerselvam
(2012) has enumerated the various challenges faced by Indian manufacturing industries in implementation of TPM.
Baglee and Knowles (2010) have identified barriers to the implementation of TPM in UK SMEs. Further, Bamber,
Sharp, and Hides (1999) have also outlined numerous hurdles affecting the TPM implementation within UK
organisations. Ahuja and Khamba (2008b) have classified barriers into different categories such as organisational,
cultural, behavioural, technological, operational, financial and departmental barriers.
Ahuja and Khamba (2008c) have identified various stumbling blocks in the implementation of TPM in Indian
Industries. Besides this, several other researchers (Crawford, Blackstone, and Cox 1988; Ireland and Dale 2001;
Maggard and Rhyne 1992; Becker 1993; Bakerjan 1994; Jostes and Helms 1994; Patterson, Kennedy, and Fredendall
1995; McAdam and Duffner 1996; Blanchard 1997; Adam et al. 1997; Davis 1997; Fredendall et al. 1997; Riis, Luxhoj,

*Corresponding author. Email: rajeshattri2005@gmail.com

© 2013 Taylor & Francis

 International Journal of Production Research 3033

and Thorsteinsson 1997; Co, Patuwo, and Hu 1998; Ljungberg 1998; Jonsson and Lesshammar 1999; Lawrence 1999;
Dal, Tugwell, and Greatbanks 2000; Mora 2002; Chan et al. 2005; Rodrigues and Hatakeyama 2006) have identified
various barriers in the implementation of TPM. However, these existing literature do not deliberate the interaction of
one barrier to another barrier. These barriers not only affect TPM implementation but also affect each other. The evalua-
tion of the overall effect of these interacting barriers is accountable for the confrontation of the TPM implementation.
To the best of our acquaintance, quantification of these barriers was not described in the literature by graph theoretic
approach (GTA). Consequently, an endeavour has been made in the current exertion to know the nature and
consequently evaluate the intensity of different barriers in the TPM implementation. The intensity of barriers shows the
deterring strength of these hurdles in the implementation of TPM. In view of this, these barriers are analysed and
quantified by using GTA. The main intents of this paper are as follows:

To identify and categorise barriers in the implementation of TPM.

To develop a mathematical model of these identified barriers using GTA.

To suggest a single numerical index representing the hindering strength of barriers.

2. Identification and categorisation of barriers in TPM implementation

TPM is an innovative approach to maintenance which holds the potential for enhancing effectiveness of production
facilities. It demands significant change of work culture and radical restructuring of work. Introducing TPM in opera-
tions located in developing countries is a major challenge because the environment is typically traditional and unfavour-
able to the transformation (Tsang and Chan 2000). In recent years, many companies have attempted to implement TPM
programmes, however less than 10% succeed in this implementation (Mora 2002). Further, Hartmann (2000) has stated
that every second attempt of TPM implementation has resulted in failure. Before the adoption and implementation of
TPM, it is very much necessary to foresee the barriers associated with it. Hence, it becomes essential to study and ana-
lyse the barriers inhibiting the TPM implementation.
On the basis of literature analysis and interactions with the managers (maintenance and production) and
academicians, a large number of barriers inhibiting the TPM implementation in industries were identified. As the number
of these barriers is large, it becomes very difficult to perform their quantification by GTA. These barriers are grouped into
different categories so that their intensity can be computed without much difficulty. If these large numbers of barriers are
not categorised, then, this computation process will become highly complex and difficult. This conception of categorisa-
tion of factors has been done by some researchers (Wani and Gandhi 1999; Grover, Agrawal, and Khan 2004, 2005,
2006; Raj and Attri 2010; Raj, Shankar, and Suhaib 2010a, 2010b; Anand and Bahinipati 2012; Muduli et al. 2013) in
their work. For graph theoretic analysis, barriers are grouped into five categories (Figure 1) in the present study.

2.1 Behavioural Barrier (B1)

These barriers are related to the human being working in the organisation. The behaviour of the persons working within
the organisation plays an important role in the implementation of the TPM. It is the commitment, involvement and sup-
port of the top management and employee which results in the successful implementation of TPM (Panneerselvam
2012). Tsang and Chan (2000), Attri et al. (2012b) have highlighted the role of top management’s commitment and
leadership in successful TPM implementation. Besides this, Bakerjan (1994), Adam et al. (1997), Co, Patuwo, and Hu
(1998), Attri et al. (2012a), Davis (1995), Jostes and Helms (1994), Chan et al. (2005), Davis (1997), and Rodrigues
and Hatakeyama (2006) have ascribed lack of top management support and understanding as the foremost hurdle in the
TPM implementation. Job insecurity and apprehension of loss of specialisation due to technological improvements also
result in TPM failure (Ahuja and Khamba 2008c). Panneerselvam (2012) has cited organisation’s ineffectualness to
obviate resistance to change as a cogent influencing factor for failure of TPM implementation programme. Resistance
may have different facet such as individual’s reluctance to amend roles (Riis, Luxhoj, and Thorsteinsson 1997; Cooke
2000), inability to adjust organisational roles and culture (Patterson, Kennedy, and Fredendall 1995; Lawrence 1999)
and inability to generate dissatisfaction with the existing situation (Maggard and Rhyne 1992; Ireland and Dale 2001).
Ahuja and Khamba (2008b, 2008c) have found that low synergy and coordination between maintenance and production
department are the important obstacle affecting successful implementation in Indian manufacturing organisations.

2.2 Human and Cultural Barrier (B2)

These barriers are related to the culture prevailing in the organisation, which significantly affects the working of human
resources within the organisation. These barriers are associated with values, behaviour and perceptions of human
3034 R. Attri et al.

Behavioural Barriers (B1)

Lack of top management
commitment (B11)
Employee resistance (B12)
Lack of clear vision (B13)
Lack of job security (B14)
Poor coordination between
maintenance & production
department (B15)

Technical Barriers (B5)

Human & Cultural Barriers
Lack of technical knowledge
(B2)
(B51)
Lack of motivation (B21)
Less educated workforce (B 52)
Lack of coordination (B22)
Lack of training & education
Inability to change (B53)
organisational culture (B23)
Lack of understanding of TPM
Unwillingness of Human concepts & principles (B 54)
resources to adopt TPM (B 24)
Absence of computerized
Less empowerment to take maintenance management
decisions (B25) systems (CMMS) (B55)

Strategic Barriers (B3)

Operational Barriers (B 4)
Ineffective long term planning
Lack of standard operating
(B31)
procedure (B41)
Non-clarity of organisational
Absence of preventive maintenance
objectives (B32)
schedules (B42)
Non-calrity of organisational
Poor workplace environments (B 43)
policy about TPM programs (B33)
Inadequate use of tool, techniques
Failure to allow sufficient time for
and methodologies (B44)
evolution (B34)
Lack of follow up of progress of
Poor structure to support TPM
TPM initiatives (B45)
initiatives (B35)

Figure 1. Barriers in the TPM implementation.

resources which foster the work culture. For the effective implementation of TPM, the management should take care of
employee’s perception and work climate among others. Lack of willingness of human resources to adopt TPM is a
major problem in the Indian organisations. This problem can be overcome by the empowerment and motivation.
Furthermore, Ahuja and Khamba (2008b, 2008c) have reported lack of motivation and empowerment to the employee
as the obstacle prevailing in Indian manufacturing organisations. Bamber, Sharp, and Hides (1999) have also specified
lack of motivation as a major obstacle in TPM implementation. Lack of coordination between the employees also acts
as an important factor contributing to the TPM implementation failure. Lawrence (1999) stated that the biggest
challenge before the organisation is to make radical transformation in the organisation’s culture for ensuring the overall
employee participation in TPM initiatives. Attri et al. (2012a), Crawford, Blackstone, and Cox (1988) and Becker
(1993) have also stated cultural resistance as the prominent problem in TPM implementation.

2.3 Strategic Barrier (B3)

These barriers are related to the strategic decision of the TPM implementation. Strategic planning of TPM implementation
is imperative as it provides a framework for proactive decision-making to evaluate performance continuously and also to
 International Journal of Production Research 3035

assess what could go wrong, determine significant risks and implement strategies to deal with those risks (Raj and Attri
2010). Long-term planning should be done for the successful implementation of TPM. Bakerjan (1994) has specified that
failure to allow sufficient time for evolution is the major obstacle for the failure of TPM implementation. Also, it is
considered by some researchers that the time required to change from a reactive programme to a proactive approach may
require a three- to five-year venture before achieving a competitive venture for the TPM programme. Non-clarity of the
organisation objectives and organisational policy towards the TPM programmes also results in the failure of TPM
implementation. Davis (1997) has outlined lack of structure and poor structure to support the TPM initiatives as the
reasons for TPM failure within UK manufacturing organisations.

2.4 Operational Barrier (B4)

These barriers are related to operation procedures of maintenance. These may stem from lack of standard operating
procedures, lack of preventive maintenance schedules, poor workplace environment, inadequate use of tool, techniques
and methodologies such as TQM, 5S, and lack of follow-up of the progress of TPM initiatives. Ahuja and Khamba
(2008b, 2008c) have reported absence and lack of implementation of standard operating procedures, and poor and
non-encouraging workplace environments in the absence of 5S as the major roadblocks in the implementation of TPM
activities in the Indian organisations.

2.5 Technical Barrier (B5)

These barriers are related to the knowledge of the TPM concepts and principles. Bakerjan (1994), Bamber, Sharp, and
Hides (1999), Chan et al. (2005), Ahuja and Khamba (2008b), Adam et al. (1997), Crawford, Blackstone, and Cox
(1988), Attri et al. (2012a), Co, Patuwo, and Hu (1998), Rodrigues and Hatakeyama (2006), and Becker (1993) have
also enumerated lack of training and education as the major hindrance in TPM implementation. Attri et al. (2012a),
Baglee and Knowles (2010) have found lack of awareness and understanding of benefit of TPM as the major obstacle
in the implementation of TPM. Lack of knowledge of TPM will result into misperception over what exactly constitutes
TPM, understanding the prominence of knowledge, fickle and vague expectations, abandoning the basics. Ahuja and
Khamba (2008c) have specified absence of computerised maintenance system as the technological obstacle affecting the
successful TPM implementation in Indian manufacturing organisations. Lack of technical knowledge and less educated
workforce also ruins the TPM implementation efforts.

3. Graph theoretic approach

GTA amalgamates the interrelationship among different variables and offers a synthetic score for the complete system.
It also takes care of directional relationship and interdependence among variables (Raj, Shankar, and Suhaib 2010a;
Attri, Dev, and Sharma 2013). GTA methodology comprises digraph representation, matrix representation and permanent
function representation. Digraph gives a graphical exemplification of the variables or attributes (barriers in the current
case) which is valuable for modelling and visual analysis. Matrix transfigures the digraph into mathematical model
which is supportive for computer processing. Permanent function portrays the system distinctively. Permanent value of
this function depicts the system by a single number or index which is appropriate for evaluation.
The idea of using GTA was originated from its versatile application that has been successfully applied in different
areas such as flexible manufacturing system (Raj, Shankar, and Suhaib 2010a, 2010b); quality (Grover, Agrawal, and
Khan 2004, 2005, 2006; Kulkarni 2005; Raj and Attri 2010; Singh, Khan, and Grover 2012); power plant (Mohan,
Gandhi, and Agrawal 2003, 2004, 2007, 2008; Garg, Agrawal, and Gupta 2006; Garg, Gupta, and Agrawal 2007; Dev,
Samsher, and Kachhwaha 2012; Dev et al. 2013); automobile (Venkataswamy and Agrawal 1995, 1996, 1997); supply
chain management (Faisal, Banwet, and Shankar 2006, 2007a, 2007b, 2007c, 2007d; Kaur, Kanda, and Deshmukh
2006, Arshinder, Kanda, and Deshmukh 2009; Anbanandam, Banwet, and Shankar 2011; Anand and Bahinipatia 2012;
Joshia et al. 2012; Muduli et al. 2013); mechatronic system (Kiran, Clement, and Agrawal 2011, 2012); structural
modelling (Prabhakaran, Babu, and Agarwal 2006; Singh and Agrawal 2008; Kumar, Clement, and Agrawal 2010);
manufacturing environment (Rao and Gandhi 2001, 2002a, 2002b; Venkatesh and Smith 2003; Rao 2004, 2006a,
2006b; Rao and Padmanabhan 2006, 2007, 2010; Chakladar, Das, and Chakraborty 2009; Gadakh and Shinde 2011;
Koulouriotis and Ketipi 2011; Paramasivam, Senthil, and Ramasamy 2011; Singh, Khan, and Grover 2011; Vinodh,
Prasanna, and Selvan 2013); reliability (Gandhi, Agrawal, and Shishodia 1991; Sehgal, Gandhi, and Angra 2000);
electroplating system (Kumar, Clement, and Agrawal 2011a, 2011b); failure cause analysis (Gandhi and Agrawal 1996);
FMEA (Gandhi and Agrawal 1992); maintenance (Kumar and Gandhi 2011); system wears evaluation (Gandhi and
3036 R. Attri et al.

Agrawal 1994); and buyer–supplier relationships (Thakkar, Kanda, and Deshmukh 2008); service provider (Qureshi,
Kumar, and Kumar 2009).
In this paper, main objective is to find the intensity of barriers affecting the implementation of TPM by quantifying
them. Quantification of the barriers is not possible by the other similar methods such as pairwise comparison, analytic
hierarchy process, analytical network process and structural equation modelling because all these methods fail to depict
the interdependence of variables or hierarchical relationships among the variables. The intensity of barriers depends
upon their inheritance and the amount of interaction among the different barriers. The five categories of barriers and
their sub-elements (i.e. sub-barriers), identified in the earlier section, are used here to evaluate the intensity of barriers in
TPM by computing index {known as intensity of barriers (IOB)}. In other words,
Intensity of barriers ¼ ðIOBTPM Þ ¼ f ðBarriersÞ (1)

3.1 Digraph representation

Digraph is used to signify the rudiments (barriers) and their interdependencies in terms of nodes and edges. This digraph
models the TPM barriers and their interrelationships. TPM barrier digraph is prepared to epitomise the barriers of the
TPM in terms of nodes and edges. It portrays TPM barriers (Bi’s) through its nodes and dependence of TPM barriers
(bij’s) through its edges. Bi designates the inheritance of TPM barriers and bij designates the degree of dependence of
the jth TPM barrier on the ith TPM barrier. In the present work, five categories of barriers such as Behavioural Barrier
(B1), Human and Cultural Barrier (B2), Strategic Barrier (B3), Operational Barrier (B4), and Technical Barrier (B5) are
schematically represented in Figure 2 and the corresponding TPM barrier digraph developed is presented in Figure 3.
The interdependencies among these notorious barriers are established with the help of expert opinion. In this paper,
experts from the industry and academia were referred in ascertaining the nature of appropriate relationship among the
identified barriers of TPM. These experts were well acquainted with maintenance practices of the organisations.

3.2 Matrix representation

The TPM barrier digraph gives a graphical exemplification of the barriers and their relative importance. If there are a
large number of TPM barriers, then there are a large number of nodes and edges; digraph becomes complex. Visual
examination will not be easy in such cases. This visualisation process is made easy by the matrix representation. Matrix
representation of TPM barriers gives one-to-one representation.
TPM barrier matrix is an N × N matrix, which deliberates all the barriers (Bi’s) and their relative interdependencies
(bij’s). As a general case, if interaction among all the five categories of barriers is considered, the matrix is written as:

8 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 9 BarrierðBi Þ
>
> B1 b12 b13 b14 b15 >
> B1
>
> >
< b21 B2 b23 b24 b25 >
= B2
A¼ (2)
b31 b32 B3 b34 b35 B3
>
> >
>
> b b42 b43 B4 b45 >>
> B4
: 41 ;
b51 b52 b53 b54 B5 B5

Behavioural Barrier (B1)

Human & Cultural Technical Barrier

Barrier (B2) (B5)

Strategic Barrier (B3) Operational Barrier

(B4)

Figure 2. Schematic representation of TQM barriers.

 International Journal of Production Research 3037

B1

B5

B2

B4

B3

Figure 3. TPM barrier digraph.

In this matrix A, the diagonal elements B1, B2, B3, B4 and B5 represent the impact of different categories of barriers in
the TPM implementation process and bij represents the interdependency of barrier i and barrier j, represented by edge
bij from i to j in the digraph.
TPM barrier matrix (A) for the TPM barrier digraph shown in Figure 3 is written as:

8 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 9 BarrierðBi Þ
>
> B1 b12 b13 b14 b15 >
> B1
>
> >
 < b21 B2 0 b24 0 > = B2
A ¼ (3)
b31 b32 B3 b34 b35 B3
>
> >
>
> b 0 b43 B4 0 > >
> B4
: 41 ;
b51 0 b53 b54 B5 B5

3.3 Permanent representation

Permanent is a standard matrix function and is used in combinatorial mathematics (Jurkat and Ryser 1966). The
permanent function is a mathematical model that helps to determine the intensity of barriers in the TPM implementation
(Nijenhuis and Wilf 1975). The permanent function is calculated in a similar fashion as its determinant. In case of
determinant of a matrix, negative sign appears for different terms, which results into loss of some information. But, in
case of permanent function, all terms are considered as positive. Rao and Padmanabhan (2010) have illustrated that
permanent function is nothing but the determinant of a matrix, but one that cogitates all the determinant terms as
positive terms. Due to this distinctive property, different researchers (Rao and Gandhi 2001, 2002a, 2002b; Rao 2004,
2006a, 2006b, 2006c; Rao and Padmanabhan 2006, 2007, 2010) have used concept of permanent function of matrix.
The permanent of TPM barrier matrix (A) (Equation (2)) is written as:
Y
5 XXXXX
perðAÞ ¼ Bi þ ðbij bji ÞBk Bl Bm
1 i j k l m
XXXXX
þ ðbij bjk bkl þ blk bkj bji ÞBl Bm
i j k l m
"
XXXXX
þ ðbij bjk Þðbkl blk ÞBm
i j k l m
#
XXXXX
þ ðbij bjk bkl bli þ bil blk bkj bji ÞBm
i j k l m
"
XXXXX
þ ðbij bji Þðbkl blm bmk þ bkm bml blk Þ
i j k l m
#
XXXXX
þ ðbij bjk bkl blm bmi bml þ blm bim bml blk bkj bji Þ ð4Þ
i j k l m
3038 R. Attri et al.

The permanent of TPM barrier matrix is a mathematical expression in symbolic form. Moreover, it ensures an estimate
of the TPM barriers existing in an organisation. It is a comprehensive expression for TPM barriers as it contemplates
the occurrence of all TPM barriers and their interdependencies.
Equation (4) contains 5! terms and these terms are organised in N + 1 groups, where N is the number of elements
(i.e. barriers in the current case). The value of N is five in the present case. The terms in the permanent are grouped into
six groups as follows:
Group 1: 1 term, Group 2: 0 term, Group 3: 10 terms, Group 4: 20 terms, Group 5: 45 terms (15 + 30) and Group 6:
44 terms (20 + 24).
The physical significance of various groups is as follows:

First grouping contains only one term. It represents a set of N unconnected TPM barriers, i.e. B1B2B3B4B5.

Second group terms if exist should have four singular sub-systems and a sub-system dependent on itself
(self-loop). Second grouping is absent in absence of self-loops. The second group will appear in the presence
of self-loops i.e. a sub-system connects itself.

Third grouping contains a set of two TPM barriers interdependence, i.e. bijbji and measure remaining N – 2
TPM barriers.

Fourth grouping terms represents a set of three TPM barriers interdependence bijbjkbki or its pair bikbkjbji and
measure of remaining N – 3 TPM barriers.

Fifth grouping terms are arranged in two subgroups. First subgroup is a set of two TPM barriers interdependence,
i.e. bijbji and bklblk and measure of remaining N – 4 TPM barriers. Second subgroup is a set of four TPM barriers
interdependence, i.e. bijbjkbklbli or its pair bilblkbkjbji and measure of remaining N – 4 TPM barriers.

Physical meaning of different terms of permanent function

B1 B2 B3 B1 B3 B4

Absent b12
B4 B5 B2 B5

First group: Second group Third group:

1 term +9 other terms

B1 B2 B1 B1

B3 B2 B4 B2 B5
b24 b52
b34 b53
b23 b45
B4 B5 B3 B5 B3 B4
b45 b35 b34

Fourth group: Fifth group (I sub group): Fifth group (II sub group):
+19 terms +14 terms +29 terms
b12
B1 B2 b12 B1 b51

B3 B2 B5
b34 b53
b23 b45

B4 B5 B3 B4
b45 b34

Sixth group (I sub group): Sixth group (II sub group):

+19 terms +23 terms

Figure 4. Graphical representation of permanent function.

 International Journal of Production Research 3039

Sixth grouping terms are arranged in two subgroups. First subgroup is a set of two TPM barriers interdependence,
i.e. bijbji, a set of three TPM barriers interdependence, i.e. bklblmbmk or its pair bkmbmlblk. Second subgroup is a set
of five TPM barriers interdependence, i.e. bijbjkbklblmbmi or its pair bimbmlblkbkjbji.
The details of such terms for a five attribute digraph are expressed in Figure 4.
A computer programme was developed using C++ language by the authors for calculating value of permanent
function.

3.4 Intensity of TPM barrier

Intensity of TPM barriers may be demarcated as the deterring strength of all the considered barriers in the TPM imple-
mentation process. The intensity or strength of barriers depends upon their individual nature and the extent of interaction
among barriers. In the current work, an endeavour has been made to compute the intensity of barriers affecting the
TPM implementation. This intensity of barriers will show the influence of these barriers in TPM implementation.
ðIOBTPM Þ ¼ f ðBarriersÞ (5)

¼ f fBehavioural BarrierðB1 Þ; Human and Cultural BarrierðB2 Þ;

Strategic BarrierðB3 Þ; Operational BarrierðB4 Þ; and Technical BarrierðB5 Þg
¼ Permanent function TPM barriers0 matrix: ð6Þ
IOBTPM is a versatile tool which has the following main features:

IOBTPM acts as a means to estimate the content of barriers prevailing in an organisation.

TPM barriers prevailing in an organisation is epitomised by a single numerical value. Higher value of IOBTPM
specifies that organisation has to improve the fragile links in implementation of TPM.

The value of IOBTPM may be used for self-analysis of an organisation.

Moreover, this value of IOBTPM may be used for comparison with other organisations.
IOBTPM value can be computed for different organisations to get knowledge about their likelihoods of successful
TPM implementation.
For computing IOBTPM, values of Bi and bij are required. The value of Bi should be taken from the available data.
Faisal, Banwet, and Shankar (2007d) and Rao (2007) have explained that if data regarding the attributes is available
from some previous research or field study, then it can be used to conclude the index. In case of qualitative value i.e.
quantitative values do not exist, then a ranked value judgement on a scale (e.g. from 1 to 9) is adopted. The ranked
value of a barrier will depend upon the existence of different barriers under that category. For example, the ranked value
for Behavioural Barrier (B1) will depend upon lack of top management commitment (B11 ), employee resistance (B12 ), lack
of clear vision (B13 ), lack of job security (B14 ) and poor coordination between maintenance and production department
(B15 ). If the existence of these barriers is very high in a particular organisation, then, a high rank such as 8 or 9 is
assigned; otherwise, a lower rank 1 or 2 is assigned to that particular category of barriers. From literature analysis, it
has been found that Wani and Gandhi (1999) and Kulkarni (2005) have used the same concept. Wani and Gandhi
(1999) have used data from previous work while Kulkarni (2005) has used questionnaire based survey to choose the
values of the attributes.
Moreover, Faisal, Banwet, and Shankar (2007d) elucidated that numerical values for the off-diagonal elements repre-
senting relative impacts between the attributes at system level or sub-system level cannot be measured directly. These
qualitative values of interdependence of barriers are also assigned on a scale of 1–5, where 1 denotes very weak and 5
denotes very strong. However, values can be consigned through proper elucidation by experts (Wani and Gandhi 1999;
Faisal, Banwet, and Shankar 2007d).

3.5 Comparison of organisations

Different organisations may be compared on the basis of intensity of barriers in TPM i.e. IOBTPM. Two organisations
will be similar from the TPM barrier point of view, if their TPM barrier digraphs are identical. TPM barrier digraph will
be identical if their TPM barrier matrix is similar. This means that values and number of terms in each grouping must
be same. On the basis of this criterion, TPM barrier identification set for an organisation is written as:
3040 R. Attri et al.

 
ðM1T =M2T =M3T =M4T =M51
T
=M52
T
=M61
T
=M62
T
. . .ÞðP1T =P2T =P3T =P4T =P51
T
=P52
T
=P61
T
=P62
T
. . .Þ (7)
where MiT represents the total number of terms in the ith grouping, and MijT represents the total number of terms in the
jth subgrouping of the ith grouping. If there is no subgrouping, then, Mij is same as MiT . Similarly, PiT is the value of
the ith grouping, and PijT is the value of jth subgrouping in the ith grouping.
The numerical values of Bi’s and bij’s are substituted in the subgrouping or grouping to obtain PijT . Two
organisations can be compared from TPM barrier viewpoint using expression (7).
In general, two organisations are never identical from TPM barrier point of view. Comparison of two organisations
can also be performed by computing the coefficient of similarity and dissimilarity on the basis of value of the terms of
the permanent function of TPM barrier in its grouping and subgrouping. This coefficient of similarity or dissimilarity
lies between 0 and 1. If two organisations are similar in terms of TPM barrier, then the coefficient of similarity is 1 and
the coefficient of dissimilarity is 0. In the same fashion, if two organisations are dissimilar in terms of TPM barrier, then
the coefficient of dissimilarity is 1 and the coefficient of similarity is 0.
The coefficient of dissimilarity can be computed as:
  NX
1 1 X N
Cd ¼ n (8)
Z i¼1 j¼iþ1 ij

where
X N 
N1 X  N 
N 1 X
X 
 T  0T 
Z ¼ maximum of Pij  and Pij ;
i¼1 j¼iþ1 i¼1 j¼iþ1

where PijT and Pij0T signify the

 values of the terms for the permanent function of TPM barrier of the two organisations
 
under comparison and ni j ¼ PijT  Pij0T .
The coefficient of similarity can be computed by
Cs ¼ 1  Cd : (9)

4. Methodology
A methodology to evaluate the intensity of barriers in the implementation of TPM is proposed on the basis of GTA.
The main steps of this methodology are as follows:
(1) Identify the various barriers affecting the implementation of TPM. Barrier may differ from organisation to
organisation depending on the size of organisation, prevailing culture and environmental factors.
(2) Group the identified barriers into categories.
(3) Develop digraph between the major barrier categories (at system level) depending on their interdependencies.
This is the digraph at the system level.
(4) After the development of digraph between the barrier categories, then develop digraph for the individual
barrier category between the barriers in each category as done in step (3). This is the digraph at the
sub-system level.
(5) Develop sub-barrier matrix for each category of barrier. This will be of size M × M, with diagonal elements
representing attributes and the off-diagonal elements representing interactions among them.
(6) Substitute the value of inheritance and interdependency in sub-barrier matrix of each barrier category. The
value of inheritance (diagonal element) of TPM barrier is to be decided on the basis of scale 1–9 and value
of interdependency is decided by the experts (academia and industries) on the basis of scale 1–5.
(7) Compute the value of permanent function for each category of barrier.
(8) Develop TPM barrier matrix at the system level.
(9) Substitute the value of inheritance and interdependency in barrier matrix of system level. At the system level,
the permanent value of each sub-barrier matrix provides inheritance of barrier in TPM implementation and
quantitative value of interactions among barriers is decided on the basis of scale (1–5) through proper
interpretation by experts.
(10) Find the value of permanent function for the system. This value of permanent function will provide the intensity
of barrier. This is the value of (IOB)TPM which mathematically characterises the inhibiting strength of various
barriers in a particular organisation based on the presence of different barriers and their interdependence.
 International Journal of Production Research 3041

(11) List different organisations in a descending order of their (IOB)TPM values.

(12) Record the results of study and document them for future analysis.
Based on the above-discussed methodology, the organisation can evaluate the extent of barriers presence in TPM imple-
mentation. The procedure for finding the intensity of barriers by using graph theoretic analysis (GTA) is shown in Figure 5.

5. Example
For the illustration of proposed methodology, an organisation is taken as an example whose intensity of barriers in TPM
(IOB)TPM is to be computed. For this, a case study is conducted about the feasibility of TPM implementation at SARA
Industries Ltd. India (company name has been changed for secrecy). This organisation is having a turnover of US$100

Literature Review Expert Opinion

Identification of barriers in the

implementation of TPM

Behavioural Human & Cultural Strategic Operational Technical

Barrier (B1) Barrier (B2) Barrier (B3) Barrier (B4) Barrier (B5)

Develop customised interdependency configuration

Develop interdependency structure

GTA Module

Plot digraph for each category of barrier at system & sub-system level
(In digraph nodes and edges represent inheritance and interdependency)

Transform the digraph into the matrix form at sub-system level

(In matrix, diagonal elements represent inheritance and off-diagonal elements represent
interdependency)

Substitute the values of inheritance and interdependency in the matrix at the sub-system level

Evaluate the permanent function for the matrix for sub-system level

Transform the digraph into the matrix form at system level

(In matrix, diagonal elements represent permanent function value at the sub-system level and
off-diagonal elements represent interdependency)

Substitute the values of permanent value of sub-system level and interdependency in the
matrix after seeking responses from experts for weights of interrelationship on some scale

Evaluate the permanent function for the matrix for system level
(The value of permanent function at system level represents intensity of barriers {IOBTPM})

Figure 5. Procedure for computing the intensity of barriers in TPM implementation.

3042 R. Attri et al.

million. Moreover, the organisation is engaged in manufacturing of steel pipes, stainless steel pipes, MS pipes and steel
tubes. The methodology discussed in preceding section is used to evaluate intensity of barriers in TPM (IOB)TPM in this
example. For this, values of inheritance and interdependency in the TPM barrier matrix have to be substituted. For this
tenacity, a questionnaire was floated in this organisation at the management level. After seeking the responses, some
experts of the level of assistant manager and above were approached for sharing and getting their opinions.

5.1 Determination of (IOB)TPM

The methodology discussed in Section 4 is used to evaluate (IOB)TPM:
Step 1 Various barriers affecting the TPM implementation are identified and presented in Figure 1.
Step 2 The barrier identified in step (1) are categorised into five groups.
Step 3 Digraph is developed for the five major categories of barriers (shown in Figure 3).
Step 4 Digraph for each barrier category is developed (Figures 6–10). In the digraph, nodes represent the sub-barriers
and edges represent their mutual interaction. Superscript denotes the sub-system and subscript indicates the barri-
ers affecting the sub-system.
Step 5 Matrix for digraph for each sub-system is written through equations (10–14). For this, inheritance of sub-barriers
and their interdependencies is discussed with the experts (as per two proposed scales, i.e. 1–9 for inheritance
and 1–5 for interdependencies).
For each category of barrier, matrix in general form (shown in Equation (2)) is considered. For example, the matrix
for first category, i.e. Behavioural Barrier (B1), can be written as shown in expression (10) after putting the values of
inheritance and interdependencies from the respective scales.
The values of inheritance and interdependencies of behavioural category taken from the relevant scales are:
B11 ¼ 9; B12 ¼ 6; B13 ¼ 8; B14 ¼ 5; B15 ¼ 5

B11

1
B 5

1
B 2

1
B 4
1
B 3

Figure 6. Digraph for Behavioural Barriers.

B21

2
B 5

2
B 2

2
B 4
2
B 3

Figure 7. Digraph for Human and Cultural Barriers.

 International Journal of Production Research 3043

B31

3
B 5

3
B 2

3
B 4
3
B 3

Figure 8. Digraph for Strategic Barriers.

B41

4
B 5

4
B 2

4
B 4
4
B 3

Figure 9. Digraph for Operational Barriers.

B51

5
B 5

5
B 2

5
B 4
5
B 3

Figure 10. Digraph for Technical Barriers.

b112 ¼ 3; b113 ¼ 3; b114 ¼ 3; b115 ¼ 2; b121 ¼ 4; b125 ¼ 4; b131 ¼ 3;

b132 ¼ 3; b134 ¼ 3; b135 ¼ 3; b142 ¼ 5; b143 ¼ 2; b145 ¼ 3; b152 ¼ 4:
Substituting these values in Equation (2), the matrix can be written as:
3044 R. Attri et al.

81 2 3 4 5 9 Sub-barrierðB1i Þ
>
> 9 3 3 3 2>> 1
>
> >
< 4 6 0 0 4>= 2
A1 ¼ (10)
3 3 8 3 3 3
>
> >
>
> 0 5 2 5 3>>
> 4
: ;
0 4 0 0 5 5
In a similar way, matrices for other categories of barriers can be written as:

81 2 3 4 5 9 Sub-barrierðB2i Þ
>
> 7 3 3 4 0>> 1
>
> >
< 0 7 3 3 0>= 2
A2 ¼ (11)
0 0 6 0 0 3
>
> >
>
> 0 2 4 5 0>>
> 4
: ;
3 0 3 3 6 5

81 2 3 4 5 9 Sub-barrierðB3i Þ
>
> 7 2 0 4 3>> 1
>
> >
< 3 5 0 4 3>= 2
A3 ¼ (12)
3 3 6 3 4 3
>
> >
>
> 0 0 0 6 0>>
> 4
: ;
0 0 0 3 6 5

81 2 3 4 5 9 Sub-barrierðB4i Þ
>
> 6 0 2 2 0>> 1
>
> >
<2 8 3 4 0>= 2
A4 ¼ (13)
0 0 5 0 0 3
>
> >
>
> 3 3 4 8 3>>
> 4
: ;
3 3 3 3 7 5

81 2 3 4 5 9 Sub-barrierðB5i Þ
>
> 8 0 0 2 2>> 1
>
> >
 <5 8 0 3 0>= 2
A5 ¼ (14)
4 3 8 5 4 3
>
> >
>0
> 0 0 9 0>>
> 4
: ;
2 0 0 0 7 5
Step 6 The permanent function value for each barrier category is computed. For example, the permanent function value
of first category, i.e. Behavioural Barrier, is calculated using Equation (4). The value of Ai is
perðA1 Þ ¼ B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 þ b12 b21 B3 B4 B5 þ b13 b31 B2 B4 B5 þ b25 b52 B1 B3 B4 þ b34 b43 B1 B2 B5
þ B2 B5 ðb14 b43 b31 Þ þ B3 B4 ðb15 b52 b21 Þ þ B3 B5 ðb14 b42 b21 Þ þ B4 B5 ðb13 b32 b21 Þ þ B1 ½ðb25 b52 Þðb34 b43 Þ
þ B4 ½ðb13 b31 Þðb25 b52 Þ þ B5 ½ðb12 b21 Þðb34 b43 Þ þ B3 ½ðb14 b45 b52 b21 Þ þ B4 ½ðb13 b35 b52 b21 Þ þ B5 ½ðb13 b34 b42 b21 Þ
þ ðb14 b43 b32 b21 Þ þ ðb34 b43 Þðb15 b52 b21 Þ þ ðb25 b52 Þðb14 b43 b31 Þ þ b13 b34 b45 b52 b21 þ b14 b43 b35 b52 b21 ð15Þ
Per A1 = 9 × 6 × 8 × 5 × 5 + 3 × 4 × 8 × 5 × 5 + 3 × 3 × 6 × 5 × 5 + 4 × 4 × 9 × 8 × 5 + 3 × 2 × 9 × 6 × 5 + 6 ×
5×3×2×3+8×5×2×4×4+8×5×3×5×4+5×5×3×3×4+9×2×4×3×2+5×3×
3×2×4+5×3×4×3×2+8×3×3×4×4+5×3×3×4×4+5×3×3×5×4+5×3×2×
3×4+3×2×2×4×4+2×4×3×2×3+3×3×3×4×4+3×2×3×4×4
= 33,326
Similarly, the permanent function for each barrier category has the following values:
Per A2 = 10,332, Per A3 = 8856, Per A4 = 22,200 and Per A5 = 34,560.
Step 7 TPM barrier matrix at the system level is developed by taking the values of diagonal elements from sub-system
level i.e. permanent function value for each barrier category:
B1 = Per A1 = 33,326, B2 = Per A2 = 10,332, B3 = Per A3 = 8856, B4 = Per A4 = 22,200 and B5 = Per A5 = 34,560.
 International Journal of Production Research 3045

8 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 9 BarrierðBi Þ
>
> 33326 4 4 4 3 >
> B1
>
> >
>
<4 10332 0 4 0 = B2
A ¼ (16)
3 3 8856 2 3 B3
>
> >
>
>
> 2 0 4 22200 0 >
> B4
: ;
2 0 3 4 34560 B5
The value of the permanent function is computed by using equation of permanent function and is found to be equal to
2.33955 × 1021. This value indicates the value of (IOB) TPM in the organisation under consideration. Besides this, it also
portrays the inhibiting power of barriers mathematically in the path of implementation of TPM.

5.2 Range of (IOB)TPM

In order to compute the range within which the values of (IOB) TPM can vary, it is proposed to compute the hypotheti-
cal lowest and hypothetical highest value of IOBTPM. These values of IOBTPM will result into the extreme values of the
IOB. These are the maximum and minimum values of IOBTPM. IOBTPM is maximum or minimum when the inheritance
of all barriers is maximum or minimum. It may be noted here that the inheritance of each barrier is computed at the
sub-system level by applying GTA. Therefore, inheritance of each barrier depends upon its sub-barriers. IOBTPM is at
its lowest value when the inheritance of all its barriers is at its lowest value i.e. 1 (from scale of 1–9 for inheritance).
For example, permanent function value for the first category, i.e. Behavioural Barriers, is minimum when the
inheritance of all its sub-barriers is minimum, i.e. 1 (from scale of 1–9 for inheritance). Therefore, the TPM barrier
matrix for Behavioural Barriers category for lowest value of IOBTPM may be rewritten as:

81 2 3 4 59 Sub-barrierðB1i Þ
>
> 1 3 3 3 2>> 1
>
> >
<4 1 0 0 4>= 2
A1 min ¼ (17)
3 3 1 3 3 3
>
> >
>
> 0 5 2 1 3>>
> 4
: ;
0 4 0 0 1 5
On computing the permanent function of above matrix, the value of the A1 min for Behavioural Barriers category is 2242.
Correspondingly, IOBTPM is at its highest value when the inheritance of all its barriers is at its highest value i.e. 9
(from scale of 1–9 for inheritance). Therefore, the TPM barrier matrix for Behavioural Barriers category for highest
value of IOBTPM may be rewritten as:

81 2 3 4 59 Sub-barrierðB1i Þ
>
> 9 3 3 3 2>> 1
>
> >
<4 9 0 0 4>= 2
A1 max ¼ (18)
3 3 9 3 3 3
>
> >
>
> 0 5 2 9 3>>
> 4
: ;
0 4 0 0 9 5
On computing the permanent function of above matrix, the value of A1 max for Behavioural Barriers category is 111,090.
Correspondingly, the maximum and minimum values of each barrier category are computed. Table 1 shows the
maximum, minimum and current value for each barrier category at system and sub-system level. Thus, the minimum
and maximum value of the IOBTPM indicates the range within which barriers can diverge. Furthermore, the values may
be used for self-assessment of organisation.

Table 1. Maximum and minimum value of the permanent function.

Permanent function at the sub-system/system level Maximum value Minimum value Current value

Per A1 111,090 2242 33,326

Per A2 63,423 7 10,332
Per A3 63,423 7 8856
Per A4 77,841 130 22,200
Per A5 61,965 5 34,560
Per A 2.15538 × 1024 9.19803 × 107 2.33955 × 1021
3046 R. Attri et al.

5.3 Comparison of two organisations

The comparison methodology, presented in Section 3, can be used for comparing any two organisations in terms of the
TPM barriers. For the demonstration of the proposed methodology, an example is considered. For this, two organisations
are considered whose TPM barriers are a function of three broad barriers namely Behavioural Barriers, Human and Cul-
tural Barriers and Technical Barriers designated by B1, B2, B3 and B01 ; B02 ; B03 for organisation 1 and organisation 2,
respectively. It may be noted here that barriers identified are assumed to be same for the both organisations. On the
basis of methodology presented in Section 3, the TPM barrier matrix for organisation 1 may be written as:

8 B1 B2 B3 9 Barriers
< B1 b12 b13 = B1
O1 ¼ (19)
b B2 b23 B2
: 21 ;
b31 b32 B3 B3
Permanent function of the above Equation (19) can be computed by using Equation (4):
PerO1 ¼ B1 B2 B3 þ b12 b21 B3 þ b13 b31 B2 þ b23 b32 B1 þ b12 b23 b31 þ b13 b32 b21 (20)
|fflfflffl{zfflfflffl} |fflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl{zfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl} |fflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl{zfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl}
First Grouping Third Grouping Fourth Grouping

The expression for per O1 is arranged in N + 1 i.e. four groups and contains N! i.e. six terms.
Similarly the permanent function for organisation 2 may be written.
As done in earlier example, values of inheritances and interactions, i.e. Bi’s and bij’s are to be used by consulting
the experts. For the demonstration of the methodology, these values are taken from the proposed scales, i.e. 1–9 for
inheritance and 1–5 for interdependencies.
B1 = 7, B2 = 7, B3 = 8, b12 = 4, b13 = 3, b21 = 4, b31 = 2
B′1 = 7, B′2 = 6, B′3 = 7, b′12 = 5, b′13 = 4, b′21 = 3, b′31 = 3
On substituting these values, the permanent function for organisation 1 may be written as:
Per O1 ¼ 392 þ 128 þ 42 þ 0 þ 0 þ 0 ¼ 562

On the basis of Equation (7) and the value of Per O1, the identification set for organisation 1 may be written as:
½1=0=3=2½392=0=170=0
Similarly, the permanent function for organisation 2 may be written as:
Per O1 ¼ 294 þ 105 þ 72 þ 0 þ 0 þ 0 ¼ 471
The identification set for organisation 2 may be written as:
½1=0=3=2½294=0=177=0
It may be noted that identification sets help to visually analyse the existence of various groups. On the basis of
Equations (8), the coefficient of dissimilarity between the two organisations is 0.161. Thus, the coefficient of similarity
is 0.838 (from Equation (9)).
This comparison procedure helps the organisations to compare different groups in identification sets, based on which
they can analyse and improve the weak link in the TPM environment.
Furthermore, organisations can be compared or ranked in increasing or decreasing order of value of the coefficient of
similarity or dissimilarity. The increasing or decreasing order is just for ranking of the organisation but managers should
mainly focus on intensity of barrier according to which some strategy for tackling these barriers may be developed.

6. Industrial relevance of methodology

The suggested procedure has very great industrial relevance in its application. Intensity of barrier IOBTPM is a very
useful tool for any organisation because managers can concentrate on the barriers having higher intensity. Before the
implementation of TPM, industries can know the inhibiting strength of different barriers in the implementation of TPM.
Higher value of IOBTPM specifies that organisation has to improve the fragile links in implementation of TPM. Hence,
with the knowledge of the intensity of various barriers, some precautions and good decisions may be taken by
production and maintenance managers while implementing TPM.
 International Journal of Production Research 3047

7. Limitations of proposed methodology

The proposed methodology of GTA for evaluating the impact of barrier in the sphere of TPM is new one and no work
can be faultless one. As no new work is absolutely impeccable, the present work is also associated with certain precincts:

Inheritance of barriers and their interdependencies are grounded on sentiments of experts which may be erratic.

Development of equation for TPM barrier permanent function becomes more difficult especially when barriers
are more because of combinatorial approach. This entails the development of software.

8. Scope of future work

In the present work, five major categories of barriers are identified for the quantification of barriers in the
implementation of TPM. The world is dynamic in nature. In future, new barriers may arise and there may be inevitabil-
ity of eradicating the old barriers. To overcome such conditions, computer software may be developed to accelerate the
quantification process. This necessity has arisen because of the problem faced in doing these calculations manually as
these calculations are tedious, repetitive and more time-consuming. With the application of computer software, new
barriers may be introduced and older ones may be obliterated. The influence of these new barriers in TPM implementa-
tion may be examined and a new mathematical model may be developed for these newer ones. From the consequences
of the new model, stratagem for tackling the barriers may be established.

9. Discussion
The GTA methodology presented in this paper assists in the computation of intensity of different barriers in the TPM
implementation. By knowing the intensity of various barriers, some strategy may be developed by the managers to
tackle them effectively. This will result in the effective implementation of TPM in the organisation.
From the considered example, it has been observed that the Behavioural Barrier category has the maximum intensity.
From this, it may be concluded that the lack of top management commitment and involvement, employee resistance,
lack of clear vision, lack of job security and poor coordination between production and maintenance department are
important barriers. Several articles on the TPM have enumerated the importance of top management commitment in the
effective and successful implementation of TPM. It is really true that any quality or maintenance programme cannot be
successfully implemented without the support of the top management and employee working within the organisation.
For the successful implementation of TPM, the management should come forward for identifying the barriers prevailing
in their organisation and should formulate proper strategy for tackling them effectively.
Next major category is Operational Barriers. Lack of standard operating procedures, absence of preventive
maintenance schedules and poor workplace environment are the main issues. For handling these types of barriers,
managers should decide the standard operating procedures, preventive maintenance check points and schedules for each
and every machine. Besides, this manager should develop some proper performance measurement techniques and
methods to get feedback for following the progress of the TPM initiatives.
Subsequent categories are Human and Cultural Barriers and Strategic Barriers. For handling Human and Cultural
Barriers, management should motivate the employees by empowering them so that employees can effectively participate
in the TPM initiatives. For overcoming the Strategic Barriers long-term policies, strategy must be developed. Besides
this, management should decide the structure for the TPM implementation. Next category is Technical Barriers. For
handling these barriers, management should provide training about the TPM and its benefits.

10. Conclusion
The paper endeavours to quantify the impact of barriers in the TPM implementation through a systematic approach. The
suggested structural approach based on GTA for the evaluation of impact in TPM implementation process has the
following features:

It permits modelling of interactions/interdependencies among various barriers.

Barriers affecting the TPM implementation process are indicated by a single numerical index.

The proposed methodology is flexible enough to incorporate the new barriers.

It permits self-analysis, evaluation and comparison of organisations.

Mathematical modelling and conversion of qualitative factors to quantitative values through systematic
methodology give an edge to the proposed technique over conventional methods.
3048 R. Attri et al.

Application of GTA makes it appropriate for visual examination and computer processing.

The proposed methodology also recommends hypothetical ideal values for barrier intensity which can be used
as a scale to improve the weak links.

References

Adam, E. E., L. M. Corbett, B. E. Flores, N. J. Harrison, T. S. Lee, B. H. Rho, J. Ribera, D. Samson, and R. Westbrook. 1997. “An
International Study of Quality Improvement Approach and Firm Performance.” International Journal of Operation and
Production Management 17 (9): 842–873.
Ahuja, I. P. S., and J. S. Khamba. 2007. “An Evaluation of TPM Implementation Initiatives in an Indian Manufacturing Enterprise.”
Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering 13 (4): 338–352.
Ahuja, I. P. S., and J. S. Khamba. 2008a. “An Evaluation of TPM Initiatives in Indian Industry for Enhanced Manufacturing
Performance.” International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management 25 (2): 147–172.
Ahuja, I. P. S., and J. S. Khamba. 2008b. “Total Productive Maintenance: Literature Review and Directions.” International Journal of
Quality and Reliability Management 25 (7): 709–756.
Ahuja, I. P. S., and J. S. Khamba. 2008c. “Strategies and Success Factors for Overcoming Challenges in TPM Implementation in
Indian Manufacturing Industry.” Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering 14 (2): 123–147.
Ahuja, I. P. S., and P. Kumar. 2009. “A Case Study of Total Productive Maintenance Implementation at Precision Tube Mills.”
Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering 15 (3): 241–258.
Ahuja, I. P. S., J. S. Khamba, and R. Choudhary. 2006. “Improved Organizational Behavior Through Strategic Total Productive
Maintenance Implementation.” Proceedings of ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition (IMECE),
1–8, Chicago, November 5–10.
Anand, G., and B. K. Bahinipati. 2012. “Measuring Horizontal Collaboration Intensity in Supply Chain: A Graph-theoretic
Approach.” Production Planning and Control 23 (10–11): 801–816.
Anbanandam, R., D. K. Banwet, and R. Shankar. 2011. “Evaluation of Supply Chain Collaboration: A Case of Apparel Retail
Industry in India.” International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 6 (2): 82–98.
Arshinder, A. Kanda, and S. G. Deshmukh. 2009. “A Framework for Evaluation of Coordination by Contracts: A Case of Two-level
Supply Chains.” Computers and Industrial Engineering 56 (4): 1177–1191.
Attri, R., S. Grover, N. Dev, and D. Kumar. 2012a. “Analysis of Barriers of Total Productive Maintenance (TPM).” International
Journal System Assurance Engineering and Management 4 (4): 365–377.
Attri, R., S. Grover, N. Dev, and D. Kumar. 2012b. “An ISM Approach for Modelling the Enablers in the Implementation of
Total Productive Maintenance (TPM).” International Journal System Assurance Engineering and Management 4 (4): 313–326.
Attri, R., N. Dev, and V. Sharma. 2013. “Graph Theoretic Approach (GTA) – a Multi-attribute Decision Making (MADM)
Technique.” Research Journal of Engineering Sciences 2 (1): 50–53.
Baglee, D., and M. Knowles. 2010. “Maintenance Strategy Development Within SMEs: The Development of an Integrated
Approach.” Control and Cybernetics 39 (1): 275–303.
Bakerjan, R. 1994. Tool and Manufacturing Engineers Handbook, Continuous Improvement. New York: ASME.
Bamber, C. J., J. M. Sharp, and M. Hides. 1999. “Factors Affecting Successful Implementation of Total Productive Maintenance: A
UK Manufacturing Case Study Perspective.” Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering 5 (3): 162–181.
Becker, S. W. 1993. “TQM Does Work: Ten Reasons Why Misguided Efforts Fail.” Management Review 82 (5): 30–34.
Blanchard, B. S. 1997. “An Enhanced Approach for Implementing Total Productive Maintenance in the Manufacturing Environment.”
Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering 3 (2): 69–80.
Bohoris, G. A., C. Vamvalis, W. Tracey, and K. Ignatiadou. 1995. “TPM Implementation in Land-rover with the Assistance of a
CMMS.” Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering 1 (4): 3–16.
Brah, S. A., and W.-K. Chang. 2004. “Relationship Between Total Productive Maintenance and Performance.” International Journal
of Production Research 42 (12): 2383–2401.
Carannante, T. 1995. “TPM Implementation – UK Foundry Industry.” The Foundryman Supplement 88 (11): 1–34.
Chakladar, N. D., R. Das, and S. Chakraborty. 2009. “A Digraph-based Expert System for Non-traditional Machining Processes
Selection.” International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 43 (3–4): 226–237.
Chan, F. T. S., H. C. W. Lau, R. W. L. Ip, H. K. Chan, and S. Kong. 2005. “Implementation of Total Productive Maintenance: A
Case Study.” International Journal of Production Economics 95 (1): 71–94.
Chowdhury, C. 1995. “NITIE and HINDALCO Give a New Dimension to TPM.” Udyog Pragati 22 (1): 5–11.
Co, H. C., B. E. Patuwo, and M. Y. Hu. 1998. “The Human Factor in Advanced Manufacturing Technology Adoption: an Empirical
Analysis.” International Journal of Operation and Production Management 18 (1): 87–106.
Cooke, F. L. 2000. “Implementing TPM in Plant Maintenance: Some Organizational Barriers.” International Journal of Quality and
Reliability Management 17 (9): 1003–1016.
Crawford, K. M., J. H. Blackstone Jr., and J. F. Cox. 1988. “A Study of JIT Implementation and Operating Problems.” International
Journal of Production Research 26 (9): 1561–1568.
 International Journal of Production Research 3049

Dal, B., P. Tugwell, and R. Greatbanks. 2000. “Overall Equipment Effectiveness as a Measure of Operational Improvement, a
Practical Analysis.” International Journal of Operations and Production Management 20 (12): 1488–1502.
Davis, R. 1995. Productivity Improvements Through TPM. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Davis, R. 1997. Making TPM a Part of Factory Life, TPM Experience (Project EU 1190, sponsored by DTI), Findlay.
Dev, N., Samsher, and S. S. Kachhwaha. 2012. “System Modeling and Analysis of a Combined Cycle Power Plant.” International
Journal of System Assurance and Engineering Management 4 (4): 353–364.
Dev, N., Samsher, S. S. Kachhwaha, and R. Attri. 2013. “GTA-based Framework for Evaluating the Role of Design Parameters in
Cogeneration Cycle Power Plant Efficiency.” Ain Shams Engineering Journal 4 (2): 273–284.
Dossenbach, T. 2006. “Implementing Total Productive Maintenance: A Successful TPM Program Will Help You Eliminate Defects,
Machine Breakdowns and Accidents.” Wood and Wood Products 111 (2): 29–32.
Dwyer, J. 1999. “More than a Maintenance Technique.” Works Management 52 (9): 15–16.
Faisal, M. N., D. K. Banwet, and R. Shankar. 2006. “Mapping Supply Chains on Risk and Customer Sensitivity Dimensions.”
Industrial Management and Data Systems 106 (6): 878–895.
Faisal, M. N., D. K. Banwet, and R. Shankar. 2007a. “Supply Chain Agility: Analysing the Enablers.” International Journal of Agile
Systems and Management 2 (1): 76–91.
Faisal, M. N., D. K. Banwet, and R. Shankar. 2007b. “Information Risks Management in Supply Chains: An Assessment and
Mitigation Framework.” Journal of Enterprise Information Management 20 (6): 677–699.
Faisal, M. N., D. K. Banwet, and R. Shankar. 2007c. “An Approach to Measure Supply Chain Agility.” International Journal of
Industrial and Systems Engineering 2 (1): 79–98.
Faisal, M. N., D. K. Banwet, and R. Shankar. 2007d. “Quantification of Risk Mitigation Environment of Supply Chains Using Graph
Theory and Matrix Methods.” European Journal of Industrial Engineering 1 (1): 22–39.
Fredendall, L. D., J. W. Patterson, W. J. Kennedy, and T. Griffin. 1997. “Maintenance Modelling: Its Strategic Impact.” Journal of
Managerial Issues 9 (4): 440–453.
Gadakh, V. S., and V. B. Shinde. 2011. “Selection of Cutting Parameters in Side Milling Operation Using Graph Theory and Matrix
Approach.” International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 56 (9–12): 857–863.
Gandhi, O. P., and V. P. Agrawal. 1992. “FMEA – A Digraph and Matrix Approach.” Reliability Engineering and System Safety 35
(2): 147–158.
Gandhi, O. P., and V. P. Agrawal. 1994. “A Digraph Approach to System Wears Evaluation and Analysis.” Transaction of ASME:
Journal of Tribology 116 (4): 268–274.
Gandhi, O. P., and V. P. Agrawal. 1996. “Failure Cause Analysis – a Structural Approach.” Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology
118 (4): 434–440.
Gandhi, O. P., V. P. Agrawal, and K. S. Shishodia. 1991. “Reliability Analysis and Evaluation of Systems.” Reliability Engineering
and System Safety 32 (3): 283–305.
Garg, R. K., V. P. Agrawal, and V. K. Gupta. 2006. “Selection of Power Plants by Evaluation and Comparison Using Graph
Theoretical Methodology.” Electrical Power and Energy Systems 28 (6): 429–435.
Garg, R. K., V. K. Gupta, and V. P. Agrawal. 2007. “Quality Evaluation of a Thermal Power Plant by Graph-Theoretical
Methodology.” International Journal of Power and Energy Systems 27 (1): 42–48.
Grover, S., V. P. Agrawal, and I. A. Khan. 2004. “A Digraph Approach to TQM Evaluation of an Industry.” International Journal of
Production Research 42 (19): 4031–4053.
Grover, S., V. P. Agrawal, and I. A. Khan. 2005. “Human Resource Performance Index in TQM Environment.” International Journal
of Management Practice 1 (2): 131–151.
Grover, S., V. P. Agrawal, and I. A. Khan. 2006. “Role of Human Factor in TQM: A Graph Theoretic Approach.” Benchmarking: An
International Journal 13 (4): 447–468.
Hamrick, J. 1994. “Eastward with TPM and CMMS.” Industrial Engineering 26 (10): 17–18.
Hartmann, E. 2000. “Prescription for Total TPM Success.” Maintenance Technology Magazine Online. http://www.mt-online.com/
april2000/prescription-for-total-tpm-success.
Ireland, F., and B. G. Dale. 2001. “A Study of Total Productive Maintenance Implementation.” Journal of Quality in Maintenance
Engineering 7 (3): 183–191.
Jonsson, P., and M. Lesshammar. 1999. “Evaluation and Improvement of Manufacturing Performance Measurement Systems – The
Role of OEE.” International Journal of Operations and Production Management 19 (1): 55–78.
Joshia, R., D. K. Banwet, R. Shankar, and J. Gandhi. 2012. “Performance Improvement of Cold Chain in an Emerging Economy.”
Production Planning and Control: the Management of Operations 23 (10–11): 817–836.
Jostes, R. S., and M. M. Helms. 1994. “Total Productive Maintenance and Its Link to Total Quality Management.” Work Study 43
(7): 18–20.
Jurkat, W. B., and H. J. Ryser. 1966. “Matrix Factorisation of Determinants and Permanents.” Journal of Algebra 3 (1): 1–27.
Kaur, A., A. Kanda, and S. G. Deshmukh. 2006. “A Graph Theoretic Approach for Supply Chain Coordination.” International
Journal of Logistics and System Management 2 (4): 321–341.
Kiran, C. P., S. Clement, and V. P. Agrawal. 2011. “Design for X-abilities of a Mechatronic System – A Concurrent Engineering and
Graph Theory Based Approach.” Concurrent Engineering 19 (1): 55–70.
3050 R. Attri et al.

Kiran, C. P., S. Clement, and V. P. Agrawal. 2012. “Quality Modelling and Analysis of a Mechatronic System.” International Journal
of Industrial and Systems Engineering 12 (1): 1–28.
Koelsch, J. R. 1993. “A Dose of TPM: Downtime Needn’t Be a Bitter Pill.” Manufacturing Engineering 110 (4): 63–66.
Koulouriotis, D. E., and M. K. Ketipi. 2011. “A Fuzzy Digraph Method for Robot Evaluation and Selection.” Expert Systems with
Applications 38 (9): 11901–11910.
Kulkarni, S. 2005. “Graph Theory and Matrix Approach for Performance Evaluation of TQM in Indian Industries.” The TQM
Magazine 17 (6): 509–526.
Kumar, V. N. A., and O. P. Gandhi. 2011. “Quantification of Human Error in Maintenance Using Graph Theory and Matrix
Approach.” Quality and Reliability Engineering International 27 (8): 1145–1172.
Kumar, A., S. Clement, and V. P. Agrawal. 2010. “Structural Modeling and Analysis of an Effluent Treatment Process for
Electroplating-a Graph Theoretic Approach.” Journal of Hazardous Materials 179 (1–3): 748–761.
Kumar, A., S. Clement, and V. P. Agrawal. 2011a. “Quality Modelling and Analysis of Electroplating System Using Graph Theory
Matrix Approach.” International Journal of Productivity and Quality Management 8 (1): 85–112.
Kumar, A., S. Clement, and V. P. Agrawal. 2011b. “Concurrent Design of Electroplating System for X-abilities: A Graph Theoretic
Approach.” International Journal of Industrial and Systems Engineering 9 (3): 350–371.
Lawrence, J. J. 1999. “Use Mathematical Modelling to Give Your TPM Implementation Effort an Extra Boost.” Journal of Quality in
Maintenance Engineering 5 (1): 62–69.
Ljungberg, O. 1998. “Measurement of Overall Equipment Effectiveness as a Basis for TPM Activities.” International Journal of
Operation and Production Management 18 (5): 495–507.
Maggard, B. N., and D. M. Rhyne. 1992. “Total Productive Maintenance: A Timely Integration of Production and Maintenance.”
Production and Inventory Management Journal 33 (4): 6–10.
McAdam, R., and A. M. Duffner. 1996. “Implementation of Total Productive Maintenance in Support of an Established Total Quality
Programme.” Total Quality Management and Business Excellence 7 (6): 613–630.
McKone, K. E., G. S. Roger, and K. O. Cua. 1999. “Total Productive Maintenance: A Contextual View.” Journal of Operations
Management 17 (2): 123–144.
Mohan, M., O. P. Gandhi, and V. P. Agrawal. 2003. “Systems Modeling of a Coal Based Steam Power Plant.” Proceedings of the
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part a: Journal of Power and Energy 217 (3): 259–277.
Mohan, M., O. P. Gandhi, and V. P. Agrawal. 2004. “Maintenance Strategy for a Coal Based Steam Power Plant Equipment – a
Graph Theoretic Approach.” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part a: Journal of Power and Energy
218 (8): 619–636.
Mohan, M., O. P. Gandhi, and V. P. Agrawal. 2007. “Real-time Commercial Availability Index of a Steam Power Plant: Graph
Theory and Matrix Method.” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part a: Journal of Power and Energy
221 (7): 885–898.
Mohan, M., O. P. Gandhi, and V. P. Agrawal. 2008. “Real Time Reliability Index of Steam Power Plant – A Systems Approach.”
Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part a: Journal of Power and Energy 222 (4): 355–369.
Mora, E. 2002. The Right Ingredients for a Successful TPM or Lean Implementation. www.tpmonline.com.
Muduli, K., K. Govindan, A. Barve, and Y. Geng. 2013. “Barriers to Green Supply Chain Management in Indian Mining Industries:
a Graph Theoretic Approach.” Journal of Cleaner Production 47: 335–344.
Nakajima, S. 1988. Total Productive Maintenance. London: Productivity Press.
Nijenhuis, A., and H. S. Wilf. 1975. Combinatorial Algorithms. New York: Academic Press.
Ollila, A., and M. Malmipuro. 1999. “Maintenance Has a Role in Quality.” The TQM Magazine 11 (1): 17–21.
Panneerselvam, M. K. 2012. “TPM Implementation to Invigorate Manufacturing Performance: An Indian Industrial Rubric.”
International Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research 3 (6): 1–10.
Paramasivam, V., V. Senthil, and N. R. Ramasamy. 2011. “Decision Making in Equipment Selection: an Integrated Approach with Digraph
and Matrix Approach, AHP and ANP.” International Journal of Advance Manufacturing Technology 54 (9–12): 1233–1244.
Patterson, J. W., W. J. Kennedy, and L. D. Fredendall. 1995. “Total Productive Maintenance is Not for This Company.” Production
and Inventory Management Journal 36 (2): 61–64.
Prabhakaran, R. T. D., B. J. Babu, and V. P. Agarwal. 2006. “Structural Modeling and Analysis of Composite Product System: A
Graph Theoretic Approach.” Journal of Composite Materials 40 (22): 1987–2007.
Pramod, V. R., S. R. Devadasan, and V. P. J. Raj. 2007. “Receptivity Analysis of TPM among Internal Customers.” International
Journal of Technology, Policy and Management 7 (1): 75–88.
Qureshi, M. N., P. Kumar, and D. Kumar. 2009. “Selection of 3PL Service Providers: A Combined Approach of AHP and Graph
Theory.” International Journal of Services Technology and Management 12 (1): 35–60.
Raj, T., and R. Attri. 2010. “Quantifying Barriers to Implementing Total Quality Management (TQM).” European Journal of
Industrial Engineering 4 (3): 308–335.
Raj, T., R. Shankar, and M. Suhaib. 2010a. “GTA-based Framework for Evaluating the Feasibility of Transition to FMS.” Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management 21 (2): 160–187.
Raj, T., R. Shankar, and M. Suhaib. 2010b. “A Graph-theoretic Approach to Evaluate the Intensity of Barriers in the Implementation
of FMSs.” International Journal of Services and Operations Management 7 (1): 24–52.
 International Journal of Production Research 3051

Rao, R. V. 2004. “Digraph and Matrix Methods for Evaluating Environmentally Conscious Manufacturing Programs.” International
Journal of Environmentally Conscious Design and Manufacturing 12: 23–33.
Rao, R. V. 2006a. “A Decision-making Framework Model for Evaluating Flexible Manufacturing Systems Using Digraph and Matrix
Methods.” International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 30 (11–12): 1101–1110.
Rao, R. V. 2006b. “Selection of a Non-traditional Machining Process Using Digraph and Matrix Method.” Proceedings of the 1st
International and 22nd All India Manufacturing Technology Design and Research (AIMTDR) conference, 979–983, IIT
Roorkee, India, December 21–23.
Rao, R. V. 2006c. “A Material Selection Model Using Graph Theory and Matrix Methods.” Materials Science and Engineering 431
(1–2): 248–255.
Rao, R. V. 2007. Decision Making in the Manufacturing Environment Using Graph Theory and Fuzzy Multi Attribute Decision
Making Methods. London: Springer.
Rao, R. V., and O. P. Gandhi. 2001. “Digraph and Matrix Method for Selection, Identification and Comparison of Metal Cutting
Fluids.” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part J: Journal of Engineering Tribology 215 (1): 25–33.
Rao, R. V., and O. P. Gandhi. 2002a. “Failure Cause Analysis of Machine Tools Using Graph Theory and Matrix Approach.”
International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture 42 (4): 521–528.
Rao, R. V., and O. P. Gandhi. 2002b. “Digraph and Matrix Methods for the Machine Ability Evaluation of Work Materials.”
International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture 42(3): 321–330.
Rao, R. V., and K. K. Padmanabhan. 2006. “Selection, Identification and Comparison of Industrial Robots Using Digraph and Matrix
Methods.” Robot Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 22 (4): 373–383.
Rao, R. V., and K. K. Padmanabhan. 2007. “Rapid Prototyping Process Selection Using Graph Theory and Matrix Approach.”
Journal of Materials Processing Technology 194 (1–3): 81–88.
Rao, R. V., and K. K. Padmanabhan. 2010. “Selection of Best Product End-of-life Scenario Using Digraph and Matrix Methods.”
Journal of Engineering Design 21 (4): 455–472.
Riis, J., J. Luxhoj, and U. Thorsteinsson. 1997. “A Situational Maintenance Model.” International Journal of Quality and Reliability
Management 14 (4): 349–366.
Rodrigues, M., and K. Hatakeyama. 2006. “Analysis of the Fall of TPM in Companies.” Journal of Material Processing Technology
179 (1–3): 276–279.
Sehgal, R., O. P. Gandhi, and S. Angra. 2000. “Reliability Evaluation and Selection of Rolling Element Bearings.” Reliability
Engineering and System Safety 68 (1): 39–52.
Singh, V., and V. P. Agrawal. 2008. “Structural Modelling and Integrative Analysis of Manufacturing Systems Using Graph Theoretic
Approach.” Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 19 (7): 844–870.
Singh, M., I. A. Khan, and S. Grover. 2011. “Selection of Manufacturing Process Using Graph Theoretic Approach.” International
Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management 2 (4): 301–311.
Singh, M., I. A. Khan, and S. Grover. 2012. “Development and Comparison of Quality Award: Based on Existing Quality Awards.”
International Journal of System Assurance and Engineering Management 3 (3): 209–220.
Teresko, J. 1992. “Time Bomb or Profit Center?” Industry Week 241 (3): 52–57.
Thakkar, J., A. Kanda, and S. G. Deshmukh. 2008. “Evaluation of Buyer–supplier Relationships Using an Integrated Mathematical
Approach of Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) and Graph Theoretic Matrix.” Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management 19 (1): 92–124.
Tripathi, D. 2005. “Influence of Experience and Collaboration on Effectiveness of Quality Management Practices: the Case of Indian
Manufacturing.” International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 54 (1): 23–33.
Tsang, A. H. C., and P. K. Chan. 2000. “TPM Implementation in China: A Case Study.” International Journal of Quality and
Reliability Management 17 (2): 144–157.
Venkatasamy, R., and V. P. Agrawal. 1995. “System and Structural Analysis of an Automobile Vehicle – a Graph Theoretic
Approach.” International Journal of Vehicle Design 16 (4/5): 477–505.
Venkatasamy, R., and V. P. Agrawal. 1996. “Selection of Automobile Vehicle by Evaluation through Graph Theoretic Methodology.”
International Journal of Vehicle Design 17 (4): 449–471.
Venkatasamy, R., and V. P. Agrawal. 1997. “A Digraph Approach to Quality Evaluation of an Automatic Vehicle.” Quality
Engineering 9 (3): 405–417.
Venkatesh, S., and J. S. Smith. 2003. “A Graph-theoretic, Linear-time Scheme to Detect and Resolve Deadlocks in Flexible
Manufacturing Cells.” Journal of Manufacturing Systems 22 (3): 220–238.
Vinodh, S., M. Prasanna, and K. E. Selvan. 2013. “Evaluation of Sustainability Using an Integrated Approach at Process and Product
Level: A Case Study.” International Journal of Sustainable Engineering 6 (2): 131–141.
Wani, M. F., and O. P. Gandhi. 1999. “Development of Maintainability Index for Mechanical Systems.” Reliability Engineering and
System Safety 65 (3): 259–270.
Willmott, P. 1994. “Total Quality with Teeth.” The TQM Magazine 6 (4): 48–50.
Windle, W. M. 1993. “TPM: More Alphabet Soup or a Useful Plant Improvement Concept?” Plant Engineering 47 (2): 62–63.
Copyright of International Journal of Production Research is the property of Taylor & Francis
Ltd 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.