International Journal of Production Research, 2016

Vol. 54, No. 10, 2976–2988, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2016.1145817

Optimizing OEE, productivity and production cost for improving sales volume in an
automobile industry through TPM: a case study
Pardeep Gupta* and Sachit Vardhan

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Sant Longowal Institute of Engineering and Technology (Deemed University), Longowal,
India
(Received 21 June 2015; accepted 27 October 2015)

The aim of this paper is to investigate how increase in sales volume has evolved by improving overall equipment
effectiveness (OEE) of machines, plant productivity and production cost through total productive maintenance (TPM)
initiatives in a reputed tractors manufacturing industry in India. In the present scenario of global competitive market, the
manufacturing industry needs to improve their operational performance for surviving and prospering. TPM is practised
by industry as a business tool for rapid and continuous improvement in its manufacturing capabilities. OEE offers a
powerful control tool to overcome production deficiencies and operational performance constrains. Productivity and man-
ufacturing cost are also crucial operational measures to analyse the manufacturing performance. In this study, evaluation
and analysis of the methodology adopted for improving sales volume through TPM initiatives was carried out using an
interactive research approach. The industrial example on the application of OEE tool demonstrates that it has a remark-
able potential to enhance the equipment effectiveness. The empirical findings of the study reveal that augmented OEE
and productivity, and reduced production cost resulted to double the sales revenue and triple the profit within a period of
three years. The industry also achieved notably tangible and intangible benefits with the TPM implementation.
Keywords: productivity; sales volume; overall equipment effectiveness; manufacturing performance; production cost

1. Introduction
Indian manufacturing sector is at a critical juncture, facing tough competition from multinational manufacturers who are
continuously working on improving manufacturing capabilities and quality standards by bringing in the latest technology
or with the application of new business tools. The Indian industry has been witnessing an rise in productivity, efficiency
and product quality with an increase in its manufacturing capabilities. Several management approaches are being used
by industry to improve its business performance for meeting the ever-growing expectations of customers. Total produc-
tive maintenance (TPM) is one such methodology that has a strong potential to enhance productivity, quality and reduce
product cost (Mcadam and Duffner 1996; Tripathi 2005; Wang 2006; Ahuja and Khamba 2008). TPM is being imple-
mented in industry as a group activity that reduces equipment maintenance, enhances productivity and improves profit
by implementing various kaizen projects (Maggard and Rhyne 1992; Gunasekaran et al. 1994; Dogra et al. 2011). It
enhances production efficiency as it involves all employees from top management to operatives to carry out maintenance
tasks in an effective manner by proper utilising all available resources to improve the overall equipment effectiveness
(OEE) of the whole plant (McKone, Roger, and O. C. 1999; Campbell and James 2006). TPM develops ‘can do’ spirit
among employees for a continual improvement in the process. TPM combines productive and preventive maintenance
techniques with an innovative approach to overcome production losses (Suzuki 1994). TPM is a proactive and cost-
effective approach which maximises equipment effectiveness as it establishes productive maintenance system which
covers the entire life of the equipment. It takes into consideration the interests of customers, employees, shareholders,
competitors and society as a whole (Fredendall et al. 1997; Brah and Chong 2004). Focused TPM implementation over
a reasonable time period can strategically contribute towards realisation of significant manufacturing performance
enhancements (Wakjira and Singh 2012).
Under TPM initiatives, the concept of OEE was introduced (Nakajima 1988) to support TPM activities. OEE is a
key performance indicator which has a positive impact in increasing the efficiency of a system (Zammori, Braglia, and
Frosolini 2011). OEE as metric was acknowledged in almost every TPM implemented industry, and is having influence
on equipment utilisation, their downtime and rework. OEE is having very simple and clear standard guidelines to track

*Corresponding author. Email: pardeepmech@yahoo.co.in

© 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

 International Journal of Production Research 2977

and trace improvements or decline in equipment effectiveness over a particular span of time (Bulent, Tugwell, and
Greatbanks 2000; De Ron and Rooda 2006). Based upon the availability rate, performance rate and quality rate, the
OEE measures the degree of effectiveness with which the equipment is performing (Williamson 2006). As a
performance measurement tool OEE helps to manage long-term effectiveness of equipment by restoring it to as good as
new conditions thereby increasing its performability and reducing production losses (Sohal et al. 2010). It captures day-
to-day fluctuations with an aim to reduce equipment downtime and improving plant maintenance tasks (Zammori 2014).
OEE is a powerful tool for identifying and eliminating losses, thereby developing efficient production system for achiev-
ing world-class manufacturing (Hemanand et al. 2012; Gupta, Vardhan, and Al Haque 2015).
TPM initiatives helped in effective utilisation of existing resources for continuous productivity improvement in a
manufacturing system (Huang et al. 2003; Wudhikarn 2012). OEE optimises productivity and increases line efficiency
by improving production rate and quality rate (Samuel et al. 2002; Tsarouhas 2013). Cost reduction by optimising man-
ufacturing performance plays an important role to become market competitive (Selvaraj, Radhakrishnan, and Adithan
2009). TPM is a business tool that can help management to unleash hidden capacity and therefore reduce production
cost and allow deferral of major capital investment (Muchiri and Pintelon 2008). In this paper, a framework for improv-
ing operational effectiveness with the applications of OEE as a tool, increasing productivity through capability building
and reducing production cost after minimising the major losses is discussed.

2. TPM as a strategic tool for improving manufacturing performance

XYZ Ltd. (name changed) is situated in Punjab, India and manufactures tractors in range from 20 to 75 HP to cater the
needs of various customer segments across the country. The vision of the company was ‘To be within top two brands in
India’, and to achieve this vision the company adopted TPM as business tool to counter both the external and internal
business challenges. The company initiated the TPM journey from 2008 onwards for achieving zero breakdowns, zero
losses, zero defectives and zero accidents. The company established its strategies with a motive to improve various
TPM performance measures or aspects such as quality, productivity, cost, delivery, safety and morale. Then the TPM
indices viz. key management indices (KMIs), key performance indices (KPIs) and key activity indices (KAIs) were
identified from the well-defined company strategies. The responsibility of attaining these KMIs, KPIs and KAIs was of
TPM steering committee, pillars and circles, respectively. The KMIs are the representative measures of the successful
implementation of TPM as manufacturing performance improvement tool which were identified after critical examina-
tion with an aim to gain the TPM goals and are presented in Table 1.
The identification of main TPM focus area which must be having maximum impact on improving manufacturing
performance is extensively important in the TPM implementation process. With the use of scientific and logic-based
methodology, sales volume was taken up as the principal KMI to be addressed first to achieve the following objectives
to attain high operational performance.
(1) Old plant and ageing machines.
(2) Higher number of breakdowns.
(3) Reduce manufacturing cost by minimising losses.
(4) Quality improvement.
(5) Quick response to market.
XYZ Ltd. adopted a strategic plan to increase its sales volume by improving OEE of all the machines, enhancing
productivity of the plant and reducing production cost. OEE provided the management a tool that helped the company

Table 1. Deployment of TPM strategies to KMIs.

TPM parameters XYZ Ltd. strategies Key management indices (KMIs)

Quality Improve customer centricity Customer satisfaction index

Number of field complaints
Productivity & delivery Improve market position Sales volume
Expand product range
Cost Attain cost leadership System cost
Safety Achieve sustainability Safety (no. of major accidents)
Morale Enhance organisational capability Employee satisfaction index
2978 P. Gupta and S. Vardhan

to monitor and optimise process stability after improving the OEE of all the machines to more than 85%. OEE helps
industries produce more without investing in new production capacity, overcome production deficiencies, reduce down-
time, minimise set-up time and improve operator performance. Productivity means how much and how well has been
produced from the available resources. Producing more or better goods from the same resources or the same goods from
lesser resources means increase in productivity. Production cost is also a significant manufacturing performance measure
and its reduction can be realised by minimising the overheads occurring due to production losses. Thus, the methodol-
ogy adopted by the company for improving OEE of all machines and plant productivity, and reducing production cost
with an aim to enhance sales volume is described as a study in the next sections.

3. Improving sales volume constructs

To increase sales volume or market share, XYZ Ltd. anticipated the annual market demand and new capacity of produc-
ing the tractors in reference to the existing production capabilities as shown in Table 2. The company employed differ-
ent TPM tools and techniques for improving the OEE from 63 to 85% and productivity (tractors/man/month) from 2.4
to 4.3, and reducing production cost (% to total cost) from 9.26 to 6.5 in a period of next three years.

3.1 OEE improvement

OEE enables organisations to benchmark and monitor their progress with simple and easy to understand metrics with a
purpose to increase the manufacturing performance. It is a well-known fact that the initial measurement of OEE at the
start of TPM initiatives is normally less than 40% in most of the industries. A well-managed TPM programme can ele-
vate OEE to over 85% as a world-class standard within a period of two to three years. One of the foremost targets of
TPM implementation in XYZ Ltd. was to advance OEE of 238 machines pertaining to the plant which were about 15
to 25 years old. So here, a methodology to progress the OEE of 50 machines belonging to light machine shop (LMS)
with the application of OEE tool is described. The tentative codes from M A01 to M A50 are given to these fifty
machines instead of using original machine numbers used by industry. The OEE of all these machines was evaluated
with the use of excel-based software and then analysed with an aim to improve and optimise it. A methodology for cal-
culating OEE of one of the machines is presented as an example in next section.

3.1.1 OEE measurement methodology

The OEE as a measurement tool has its strength in the way it integrates different important aspects of manufacturing
into single measurement tool. The perspectives integrated in the OEE tool are the maintenance effectiveness, production
efficiency and quality efficiency. Thus, OEE is a function of availability (A), performance rate (P) and quality rate (Q).
OEE = Availability (A) × Performance Rate (P) × Quality Rate (Q)
Loading time  Unplanned Downtime
Availability ðAÞ ¼  100
Loading time
where, Loading time = Working time − Planned stoppages time
Cycle Time  Quantity Produced
Performance Rate ðPÞ ¼  100
Operating Time
where, Operating Time = Loading Time – Unplanned Downtime

Table 2. Annual market demand of tractors.

Year F08 F09 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14

Production volume 19,109 25,148 31,239 32,920 39,105 44,517 46,324

Demand 20,000 25,000 31,400 32,900 38,200 43,500 46,300
Capacity 25,200 30,000 31,800 36,000 39,000 43,800 46,500
 International Journal of Production Research 2979

Quantity Produced  Parts Rejected

Quality Rate ðQÞ ¼  100
Quantity Produced
Planned stoppages time includes:
Cleaning time
Preventive maintenance time
Operator’s non availability time
Time spent on communication meetings
Un-planned down time includes:
Waiting time because of non availability of tools
Set up change time
Set up adjustment time
Breakdown time
Waiting time to receive material
Power failure
Tool change time
Time lost due to tool breakage

3.1.2 Evaluation of OEE of Machine No. M A25

(A) Working time (min.) = 420 + 420 = 840 min.

(B) Planned stoppages time (min.)

(1) Cleaning = 20
(2) No operation = 0
(3) Planned downtime = 0
Total=20 min

(C) Loading time (min.) = working time (A) – planned stoppages time (B)
=840 min – 20 min = 820 min
(D) Unplanned downtime (min.)

(1) Availability of tools = 0

(2) Set-up change = 0
(3) Set-up adjustment = 0
(4) Machine breakdown = 0
(5) Waiting material = 0
(6) Power/air failure = 0
(7) Tool changes = 0
(8) Tool breakages = 0
(9) Minor stoppages = 0
(10) Others (if any.) = 0
Total = 0 min

(E) Operating time (min.) = loading time (C) – unplanned downtime (D)
=820 min – 0 min = 820 min
2980 P. Gupta and S. Vardhan

Loading time  Unplanned Downtime

Availability ðAÞ ¼  100
Loading time

820  0
¼  100 ¼ 100
820
Quantity produced = 124 units
Rejected = 0
Measured cycle time (min./unit) = 5.7
Actual processing time = quantity produced × cycle time
=124 × 5.7 = 707 min
Cycle Time  Quantity Produced
Performance Rate ðPÞ ¼  100
Operating Time

5:7  124
¼  100 ¼ 86:2
820

Quantity Produced  Parts Rejected

Quality Rate ðQÞ ¼  100
Quantity Produced

124  0
¼  100 ¼ 100
124
) OEE of Machine No M A25 = Availability (A) × Performance Rate (P) × Quality Rate (Q)
= 100 × 86.2 × 100 = 86.2%

3.1.3 Analysis of OEE of LMS machines

After calculating the OEE of all the 50 machines on daily basis, monthly average OEE and three months average OEE
of these machines were evaluated to find out the machines having OEE less than 85%. Next, the graphical representa-
tion as a bar chart of three months average OEE of LMS machines in descending order was plotted as presented in
Figure 1. The bar chart highlights the OEE trend which promptly indicates about the machines having low OEE. It was
found that only eight machines were having OEE more than 85% and thus there was an urgent need to enhance the
OEE of the remaining 42 machines having low OEE.

Figure 1. OEE trend.

 International Journal of Production Research 2981

3.1.4 Upgrading OEE of LMS machines

Five machines having OEE less than or equal to 70% were first considered for improving their OEE. The losses respon-
sible for low OEE got identified after the use of the why–why analysis and then time bound future action plans were
initiated on these five machines for enhancing their production efficiency as shown in Table 3.
As per the future action plan, a good number of kaizen projects were carried out and the desired improvement in
OEE of these five machines was achieved. The monthly progressive augmentation in OEE of one of the machines num-
bered M A08 as an example is highlighted in Figure 2. Similarly, the OEE of all other machines pertaining to LMS got
improved to more than 85% level.

3.2 Productivity improvement

Productivity is another widely used manufacturing performance measure and is essential for driving and managing pro-
duction improvements. The productivity of the company in terms of tractors/man/month was enhanced with capacity
building by implementing improvement projects without capital investment and capacity building with capital invest-
ment. The productivity improvement was carried out through value analysis, value engineering, de-bottlenecking and
OEE improvement. For increasing production volume, investment was done on automation, improvement in infrastruc-
ture and new machines. Overall, 74% capacity enhancement was achieved after the implementation of TPM initiatives.
The progressive improvement in productivity from 2.4 in 2008 to 3.8 in 2012 after performing various TPM activities is
highlighted in Table 4.

3.3 Reduction in production cost through TPM initiatives

The product cost includes material cost, production cost and profit. Production cost incorporates machining/processing
cost and costs associated with production losses. Production losses can be controlled and reduced to a good extent and
this can help in reducing the production cost. Thus reducing production cost (% of total cost) from 9.26 to 6.5 within
two/three years remained the aim of the company. The approach adopted by the company for reducing the contributing
losses resulted in decreasing the production cost is discussed in the next steps.

3.3.1 Losses prioritisation to identify key contributing losses

Shutdown losses, availability losses, operator performance losses, quality losses and cost losses were contributing signif-
icantly in increasing the manufacturing cost of products produced by the company. So, one of the goals of TPM was to
reduce production cost after minimising the major losses. The purpose of implementing TPM initiatives was to identify
the losses, prioritise these losses to further reduce the major contributing losses to reduce the production cost.

3.3.2 Loss–cost matrix preparation

The loss–cost matrix gives a clear indication of the cost impact associated with 16 major losses which can help the
management to focus its efforts to effectively mitigate the most expensive losses. A loss register was maintained at the
shop floor to record the losses occurring during the production cycle for each machine. The equipment downtime under

Table 3. Action plan for loss reduction.

S. Target
No. Machine Loss type Action plan date

1 M A08 Measurement To rectify machine/fixture 28.06.14

adjustment
2 M A13 High set up time To reduce set up activities 30.06.14
3 M A16 Measurement To resolve quality problems 30.06.14
adjustment
4 M A21 Waiting material To reduce bin changeover 25.06.14
time
5 M A01 High set up time To reduce set-up activities 10.07.14
2982 P. Gupta and S. Vardhan

Figure 2. Improvement in OEE of M A08 machine.

Table 4. Progressive improvement in productivity.

Productivity Capital investment (INR

Year Capacity (tractors/man/month) in millions) TPM activities performed

2008 25,200 2.4 0

Use of multi start hob
Use of plunge shaving
Machining on rear cover line
Increase bull gear loading charge
Chassis punching machine installed
2009 30,000 3.21 0
Balance gear box machining line
Re-balancing of assembly line
Life cycle assessment on bull gear shaving machine
Loading of additional gears with shafts in heat treatment
(HT)
Extension of loop conveyor
2010 31,800 3.27 0
No. of hangers increased in paint shop
Manipulator of hood in assembly
Use of electrostatic gun in paint shop
Use of combination drills
Multi machine manning in light machine shop (LMS) and
heavy machine shop (HMS)
Modify forging of internal gears
Shifting break housing from HMS to LMS
Slat conveyor installation
2011 36,000 3.72 137
Re-Layout of bull pinion shaft line
Installation of 2 HT furnaces
3- start hob on bull gear
Outsourcing of low value added activities
2012 39,000 3.8 222

different losses used to be recorded precisely in the loss register for all the shifts and for all the machines. Costs associ-
ated with all the losses with respect to variable cost and fixed cost were estimated and recorded in a well-designed loss–
cost matrix by a trained Kobetsu–Kaizen (KK) pillar member having thorough financial knowledge as shown in Table 5.
Table 5. Loss cost matrix.

Variable cost Fixed cost

Sr. Material Machine Machine Hire & Employee Divisional Repair & Total loss cost
No Losses Power Consumable cost Diesel Tool spares Admin. deprecation service cost expenses maintenance INR/tractor

1 Breakdown loss 10.71 3.76 3.02 2.23 12 9.48 26.59 26.93 3.43 98.15
2 Set up loss 10.17 3.57 4.85 47.66 25.25 91.5
3 Minor stoppages 0.38 0.08 1.8 0.43 0.34 0.95 0.96 0.12 5.07
loss
4 Start up loss 1.31 0.46 3.26 5.03
5 Tool change loss 5.1 1.79 0.03 2.43 23.91 12.67 45.93
6 Speed loss 0.28 0.1 0.13 0.06 1.3 0.31 0.25 0.69 0.7 0.09 3.91
7 Shut down loss 0.06 0.03 0.79 0.19 0.15 0.42 0.42 0.05 2.11
8 Rejection & 0.12 0.04 12.06 0.03 0.06 0.02 0.55 0.13 0.1 0.29 0.3 0.04 13.75
rework loss
9 Waiting material 2.84 0.18 0.15 0.11 0.58 1.28 5.14
10 Motion loss 1.38 1.38
11 Logistics loss 1.04 4.87 0.92 2.61 9.44
12 Under inspection 0.39 0.14 0.11 0.98 1.62
13 Line organisation 0.41 1.02 1.43
loss
International Journal of Production Research

14 Energy 64 135 199

consumption
(Rs/tractor)
15 Fixture 0.16 35 0.52 0.41 1.15 1.16 0.15 38.55
breakdown
16 Yield loss 58 58
2983
2984 P. Gupta and S. Vardhan

Figure 3. Losses prioritisation based on loss–cost matrix.

Then total loss–costs were calculated in terms of INR/tractor that helped in identifying the main contributing losses after
prioritisation as presented in Figure 3. The highest affecting losses as identified were energy loss, breakdown loss, set-
up loss, yield loss and tool change loss contributing 34.3, 16.9, 15.8, 10 and 7.9% of the total loss–cost, respectively.

3.3.3 Overcoming of key contributing losses

Different TPM tools and techniques were used to reduce these major losses viz. energy loss, breakdown loss, set-up
loss, yield loss and tool change loss with a purpose to decrease the overall production cost.

3.3.3.1 Promotion to reduce energy loss. Energy loss being highest amongst all the losses addressed first on priority by
the company. The main energy consumption areas were identified as LMS, HMS, heat treatment, paint shop, utility and
assembly sections. After the energy consumption analysis, it was found that maximum energy consumption was taking
place in the paint shop. Further it was observed that 57 and 43% of energy consumption in paint shop was occurring on
electricity and diesel, respectively. Thus the aim of reducing energy consumption was focused on decreasing electricity
consumption (Kwh/tractor). Next it was discovered that the highest electricity consumption of 26% was taking place in
pre-treatment of components area pertaining to paint shop. Then a Kaizen project was initiated to reduce the electricity
consumption in two months period from July to August 2013. A modification in heating system of phosphate solution
used in paint shop was carried out on the recommendation of the kaizen project team. Indirect heating of phosphate
solution through water jacket was replaced with a new system of direct heating of phosphate solution with the use of
two immersion rods. With this breakthrough idea, the electricity consumption reduced from 37 Kwh/tractor to
24 Kwh/tractor causing a saving of 35% in energy consumption. Similarly, very innovative 45 different kaizen projects
for energy consumption reduction were carried out in the plant leading to a total cost saving of INR 32.5 million. An
annual reduction in energy consumption was made possible as shown in Figure 4(a).

3.3.3.2 Promotion to reduce set-up losses. Set-up changes result in machine unavailability leading to production loss.
After the study, it was found that the set-up losses of 85 and 15% were taking place in LMS and HMS, respectively.
Then it was planned to target the LMS being major contributor for causing set-up losses and the machines where high-
est set-up losses were occurring got identified. A good number of Kaizens were performed and on implementing their
findings resulted in reducing set-up time from 12,117 to 3184 h causing a big saving in set-up time of 73%. The annual
reduction in set-up losses in hours is shown in Figure 4(b).

3.3.3.3 Promotion to reduce tool change losses. Tool change losses used to cause machines non availability leading to
a significant production loss. After investigation, it was found that the tool change losses of 43 and 57% were taking
 International Journal of Production Research 2985

4(a) Reduction in energy consumption

4(b) Reduction in setup loss

4(c) Reduction in tool change loss

Figure 4. Reduction in losses.

place in LMS and HMS, respectively. Then it was planned to initiate TPM initiatives in the HMS being major contribu-
tor for causing maximum tool change losses. The machines utilising highest tool change time were identified with a pur-
pose to reduce this time. A good number of Kaizens were performed and on implementing their findings resulted in
reducing tool change time from 1365 h in 2009 to 412 h in 2014. Thus a saving in tool change time by 69% was
achieved within a period of five years as shown in Figure 4(c).

3.3.3.4 Promotion to reduce breakdown losses. Machines breakdown and their maintenance were the major area of con-
cern due to their high numbers and repetitive nature of breakdowns. The major cause for high breakdowns was due to
old age of majority of the machines, most of the operating system getting obsolete and due to poor planned mainte-
nance. 5S activities, Jishu–Hozen (JH) initiatives, maintenance management system, maintenance information manage-
ment system and predictive maintenance were evolved and implemented in all the sections of the plant to reduce the
2986 P. Gupta and S. Vardhan

Figure 5. Improvements after TPM implementation.

breakdown losses. With the Planned Maintenance (PM) pillar initiatives from 2008 to 2014, a total number of break-
downs reduced from 326 to 31, breakdown hours come down from 3100 to 300, mean time to repair in hours reduced
from 9.5 to 2 and maintenance cost in INR/tractor reduced from 1350 to 760.

3.3.3.5 Promotion to reduce yield losses. The objective of implementing quality maintenance (QM) pillar activities was
to reduce field failure, in-process machining defects and to improve product quality. Defects capturing and stratification,
quality assurance matrix preparation, identification of root causes for major defects, initiating kaizen projects, implemen-
tation of kaizen findings and confirming results remained the major QM pillar activities to reduce rejection and rework
losses. As a result the machine shop rejection and rework decreased from 5290 to 860 PPM/month, reduction in supplier
rejection reduced from 8.6 to 1.2% and field complaints also reduced by 30%. This reduction in rejection and rework
losses caused a huge saving to the company.

3.3.4 Overall improvement in production cost

The implementation of TPM tools and techniques remained highly successful in reducing highest affecting losses –
energy loss, breakdown loss, set-up loss, yield loss and tool change loss. An overall 30% reduction in production cost
was achieved after saving the costs associated with the major losses within a period of six years (2009–2014).

4. Conclusion
The purpose of the present study is to give insight into how increase in manufacturing performance in terms of sales
volume has taken place with improvement in OEE, productivity and production cost. OEE proved to be a valuable tool
 International Journal of Production Research 2987

that helped the management in improving the process capabilities and operational effectiveness of the plant equipment.
The OEE of all machines got improved above 85% level. Figure 5(a) highlights the OEE improvement trend and it
reveals that overall 39% improvement in OEE has taken place in about five years period. Augmenting productivity was
another important improvement driver identified by the company to fulfil its prime goal of enhancing its sales volume.
An appreciable improvement up to 74% in productivity was obtained with the implementation of TPM initiatives as is
evident from Figure 5(b). It is a well-known fact that the production cost is a deserving factor to support the sales vol-
ume of any manufacturing industry. The implementation of TPM initiatives remained successful in minimising produc-
tion losses which contributed to reduce the production cost by 30%. Figure 5(c) reveals that reduction in production
cost (percentage of total cost) occurred from 9.26 to 6.4 in six years time. The holistic impact of improvements in
OEE, productivity and production cost played a prominent role in optimising the sales volume of the company form
27,423 tractors in 2008 to 78,765 in 2014 as shown in Figure 5(d). The growth in sales volume brought a considerable
improvement in market share of the company from 9.1 to 12.8%.
Generally, the OEE measure is treated as an important indicator of the success of TPM programme. This research
demonstrates an innovative use of OEE as a tool for improving operational effectiveness of all the machines under TPM
consideration. On precisely monitoring the increase in OEE and plant productivity trend as presented in Figure 5(a) and
(b), it is observed that OEE and productivity are closely linked together and improvement in OEE contributes in
enhancing plant productivity. The study also summarises that OEE is not the only productivity improvement criteria
whereas capacity building through improvement projects or technology up gradation with capital investment also con-
tributed in escalating productivity. XYZ Ltd. achieved notably tangible and intangible benefits with the TPM implemen-
tation and received the ‘Award for TPM Excellence’ in 2012 in recognition of its enhanced manufacturing capability.
The company continued its TPM journey to achieve higher levels of improved manufacturing performance.

Acknowledgement
Authors express sincere thanks to the management and TPM team members of XYZ. Ltd. Punjab, India for providing technical sup-
port and valuable information for the preparation of this case study.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References

Ahuja, I. P. S., and J. S. Khamba. 2008. “Strategies and Success Factors for Overcoming Challenges in TPM Implementation in
Indian Manufacturing Industry.” Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering 14 (2): 123–147.
Brah, S. A., and W. K. Chong. 2004. “Relationship between Total Productive Maintenance and Performance.” International Journal
of Production Research 42 (12): 2383–2401. doi:10.1080/00207540410001661418.
Bulent, D., P. Tugwell, and R. Greatbanks. 2000. “Overall Equipment Effectiveness as a Measure of Operational Improvements-a
Practical Analysis.” International Journal of Operations Management 20: 1488–1502.
Campbell, J. D., and R. P. James. 2006. Strategies for Excellence in Maintenance Management. 2nd ed. Portland, OR: Productivity
press.
De Ron, A. J., and J. E. Rooda. 2006. “OEE and Equipment Effectiveness: An Evaluation.” International Journal of Production
Research 44 (23): 4987–5003.
Dogra, M., V. S. Sharma, A. Sachdeva, and J. S. Dureja. 2011. “TPM- a Key Strategy for Productivity Improvement in Process
Industry.” Journal of Engineering Science and Technology 6 (1): 1–16.
Fredendall, L. D., J. W. Patterson, W. J. Kennedy, and T. Griffin. 1997. “Maintenance: Modeling its Strategic Impact.” Journal of
Managerial Issues 9: 440–453.
Gunasekaran, A., A. R. Korukonda, I. Virtanen, and P. Yli-Olli. 1994. “Improving Productivity and Quality in Manufacturing Organi-
zations.” International Journal of Production Economics 36: 169–183.
Gupta, P., S. Vardhan, and M. S. Al Haque. 2015. “Study of Success Factors of TPM Implementation in Indian Industry towards
Operational Excellence: An Overview.” Industrial Engineering and Operations Management (IEOM-2015). doi:10.1109/
IEOM.2015.7093740.
Hemanand, K., D. Amuthuselvan, S. C. Raja, and G. Sundararaja. 2012. “Improving Productivity of Manufacturing Division using
Lean Concepts and Development of Material Gravity Feeder-a Case Study.” International Journal of Lean Thinking 3 (2):
117–134.
2988 P. Gupta and S. Vardhan

Huang, S. H., J. P. Dismukes, J. Shi, Q. I. Su, M. A. Razzak, R. R. Bodhale, and D. E. Robinson. 2003. “Manufacturing Productivity
Improvement using Effectiveness Metrics and Simulation Analysis.” International Journal of Production Research 41 (3):
513–527. doi:10.1080/0020754021000042391.
Maggard, B. N., and D. Rhyne. 1992. “TPM- a Timely Integration of Production and Maintenance.” Production and Inventory
Management 33: 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 7 (6): 613–630. doi:10.1080/09544129610522.
McKone, K. E., G. S. Roger, and O. C. Kristy. 1999. “Total Productive Maintenance: A Contextual View.” Journal of Operations
Management 17 (2): 123–144.
Muchiri, P., and L. Pintelon. 2008. “Performance Measurement using Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE): Literature Review and
Practical Application Discussion.” International Journal of Production Research 46 (13): 3517–3535.
Nakajima, S. 1988. Introduction to Total Productive Maintenance (TPM). Cambridge, MA: Productivity Press.
Samuel, H. H., et al. 2002. “Manufacturing System Modeling for Productivity Improvement.” Journal of Manufacturing Systems
21 (4): 249–260.
Selvaraj, P., P. Radhakrishnan, and M. Adithan. 2009. “An Integrated Approach to Design for Manufacturing and Assembly Based on
Reduction of Product Development Time and Cost.” The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 42:
13–29. doi:10.1007/s00170-008-1580-8.
Sohal, A., J. Olhager, P. O’Neill, and D. Prajogo. 2010. “Implementation of OEE: Issues and Challenges.” International conference
on advances in production management systems (AMPS), Como.
Suzuki, T. 1994. TPM in Process Industry. Portland, OR: Productivity Press.
Tripathi, D. 2005. “Influence of Experience and Collaboration on Effectiveness of Quality Management Practices.” International
Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 54 (1): 23–33.
Tsarouhas, P. H. 2013. “Evaluation of Overall Equipment Effectiveness in the Beverage Industry: A Case Study.” International
Journal of Production Research 51 (2): 515–523. doi:10.1080/00207543.2011.653014.
Wakjira, M. W., A. P. Singh. 2012. “Total Productive Maintenance: A Case Study in Manufacturing Industry.” Global Journal of
Researches in Engineering Industrial Engineering 12 (1): 25–32.
Wang, F. K. 2006. “Evaluating the Efficiency of Implementing Total Productive Maintenance.” Total Quality Management & Business
Excellence 17 (5): 655–667. doi:10.1080/14783360600588232.
Williamson, R.M. 2006. Using Overall Equipement Effectiveness: The Metric and the Measures. Columbus, OH: Strategic Work
Systems. Accessed June 20, 2006. http://www.swspitcrew.com
Wudhikarn, R. 2012. “Improving Overall Equipment Cost Loss Adding Cost of Quality.” International Journal of Production
Research 50 (12): 3434–3449. doi:10.1080/00207543.2011.587841.
Zammori, F. 2014. “Fuzzy Overall Equipment Effectiveness (FOEE): Capturing Performance Fluctuations through LR Fuzzy
Numbers.” Production Planning & Control 26 (6): 451–466. doi:10.1080/09537287.2014.920545.
Zammori, F., M. Braglia, and M. Frosolini. 2011. “Stochastic Overall Equipment Effectiveness.” International Journal of Production
Research 49 (21): 6469–6490. doi:10.1080/00207543.2010.519358.
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.