07 - Salas - Ramirez - Bernal

Implementing Total
Productive Maintenance at
B.A.T. Niemeyer
Menno Burkunk
Master Thesis
University of Groningen
Faculty of Economics and Business
Technology Management
Author: Menno Burkunk
Student Number: 1271059
Company: British American Tobacco Niemeyer
First Supervisor: Drs. J. Veldman
Second Supervisor: Dr. Ir. W. Klingenberg
Company Supervisor: Willy Smink (Quality Manager)
Date: September 2009
The author is responsible for the content of this report; the copyright of the report is vested in the
ownership of the author.
Preface
This research report that is written for British American Tobacco Niemeyer in Groningen and forms the
final Master Thesis of my study Technology Management at the Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. BAT
Niemeyer is a producer of shag and the company is exporting shag to more than 120 countries all over
the world. Samson, Lucky Strike, Javaanse Jongens and Pall Mall form their driving brands. The
research was interesting, challenging, sometimes complex but above all very instructive. Moreover,
the research let me experience the pleasant and open business culture of BAT Niemeyer in which I
quickly felt at home.
From BAT Niemeyer I would like to thank Willy Smink (Quality & Product Assurance Manager) and
Hugo Timmerman (Business Services Manager) for giving me the opportunity to conduct this
research. They supplied me with all the necessary resources I needed to do my research. In my own
office with the great view I already felt like a manager. Willy, in spite of his tight schedule, always
found time, energy and patience to give me useful feedback and have long and fruitful discussions
with me. When I was inclined to take the wrong direction on the road of my research he sent me the
right way. Furthermore, I would like to thank my colleagues at the Business Services Department for
being a very nice company during my stay. They were always very interested and provided me with
the necessary information and pleasant distraction. From the manufacturing site I would like to thank
all the employees who were willing to cooperate and provide me with the needed information. Without
their help this research could not succeed. Finally, I would like to thank all other colleagues at BAT
Niemeyer I did not mention or forgot to mention.
From the university I would like to thank Jasper Veldman and Warse Klingenberg for being my
mentors during this research. Jasper, who guided and supported me during the whole research,
always provided me with clear, accurate and quick feedback and learned me how to do academic
research and to stay critical. He helped me to stay focused and work in a structured manner. Thanks
for that!
Finally, I want to thank my friends and family. In particular my sister, Jurriaan and off course my
girlfriend for their support and trust in me. A special last thanks goes to my parents, who
unconditionally support and coach me.
By finalizing my thesis a fantastic time as a student in Groningen has ended.
Menno Burkunk
Groningen, September 2009
Implementing Total Productive Maintenance at BAT Niemeyer 3

Executive Summary
In spite of the initiation of a TPM program at BAT Niemeyer the results are not as expected. The
equipment-efficiency measured by BAT Niemeyer hardly increased since the start of the program.
Now, the reorganization, “Horizon”, has been carried out the focus will be on the TPM implementation
again.
In order to focus the research on the biggest shortcomings of BAT Niemeyer within TPM an
assessment is done in a preliminary investigation. The TPM principles ‘cultural awareness’ and
‘elimination of losses’ were indicated with the lowest scores.
The objective of the main investigation is to expose the causes of the low scores on these principles
and subsequently formulate recommendations in order to achieve an structural improved
implementation of these principles. The improvement will result in an increase in the Overall
Equipment Efficiency.
The creation of employee commitment turned out to be essential within ‘cultural awareness’. By
creating commitment, the behavior of employees will change in such a manner that it will align with the
rules of TPM. Intangible factors such as involvement, ownership, and understanding are the key
issues in obtaining commitment. Hansson and Backlund (2003) identified ‘enabling activities’ that
influence intangible factors and affect commitment. A survey, based on the model, was carried out
under 38 shop floor workers in order to determine the current level of TPM commitment and the
current performance of the ‘enabling activities’. The current level of TPM commitment at BAT
Niemeyer is insufficient (2,8 on 1-5 scale). The enabling activities turned out to be underperformed
(means between 2,4 and 3,6 on 1-5 scale) by middle- and top management. Measuring & Evaluation,
Communication & Information and Empowerment activities were statistically proven to be of significant
influence on employee commitment by a Multiple Regression Analysis.
In order to create employee commitment the results and the progression of the TPM implementation
have to be measured and evaluated more strictly on team level. Clear and quantifiable goals, e.g. in
terms of an OEE increase, have to be set and evaluated in formal meetings with middle management.
In this way a sense of importance will be created on shop floor level and progression will be
experienced. Furthermore, misunderstandings about the goals and guidelines of TPM at BAT
Niemeyer have to be taken away by clear and open communication. As a result of the relatively low
level of education some shop floor workers do not see the benefits and the exact meaning of the
concept which influences motivation negatively. Clear information about desirable behavior in their
daily tasks is necessary. Finally, the team responsibility has to be extended, besides production goals,

to improvement goals. By setting their own goals for improvement responsibility will increase. Bad
behavior must not be tolerated by management and achieved goals have to be rewarded.
Causes of a low integration of ‘elimination of losses’ principle were searched in shortcomings in the
performance of the defined steps in the elimination of losses process. First, the use of model machine
can be very useful for BAT Niemeyer. Resources for improvement can be focused on one machine
instead of using a ‘big bang’ strategy. Quick and visible benefits will increase the motivation and trust
in TPM. The machine can form the guideline for the replication of improvements over the factory to the
other, mainly similar, machines. Furthermore, the measurement of the OEE needs to be improved. It is
inaccurate and labor intensive. The employees do not trust the OEE output and are unmotivated to
work with it. The current OEE measurement cannot form the basis for actions of improvement. A
cross-functional so called Focused-Improvement team (FI-team) has to be formed which will drive
improvements in the factory. It is in charge of leading the improvement plans and is responsible for
establishing lines of action, priorities and tracking activities related to the TPM master plan. The
production-, quality- or TPM manager coordinates or leads the group. The FI-team aims at maximal
engagement of all area employees and links the knowledge existing within the different teams. Finally,
working processes have to be defined in Standard Operating Procedures (SOP). Structural losses
have a frequent existence and their causes are locked in the organization’s structure which is made up
out of standards. By defining work processes in SOP’s a certain situation can be fixed. Which means
that a certain level of equipment-efficiency can be fixed. Then, by using creativity and innovation ability
these standards can be improved and embedded in the organization by defining a new standard. In
this way frequently executed activities like e.g. a tobacco set-up can be optimized and losses of
expensive production time will be minimized. A central database with SOP’s has to be created and
kept up-to-date.
Besides, these improvements it is essential to take down the workload and take care of covering
manpower. Due to the recent reorganization the pressure of workload is relatively high and now and
then manpower is insufficient. By taking down the workload pressure the focus can be placed more on
TPM again.
Finally, further investigation within group development can be interesting for the optimization of the
team performance.

Table of Contents
Preface ...................................................................................................................................3
Executive Summary ...............................................................................................................4
Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................6
Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................9
1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................10
1.1 The history of British American Tobacco Niemeyer B.V. ..................................................... 10
1.2 BAT Niemeyer’s mission and characteristics ...................................................................... 12
1.3 Production process ............................................................................................................ 13
1.3.1 The primary manufacturing process (preparation) ..................................................... 13
1.3.2 The secondary manufacturing process (packing) ........................................................ 14
1.4 Production organization .................................................................................................... 14
1.5 Improvement of production process .................................................................................. 15
1.5.1 Approach ................................................................................................................... 15
1.5.2 Results ....................................................................................................................... 16
2 Problem analysis and research plan .............................................................................16
2.1 Problem analysis................................................................................................................ 17
2.2 Research plan .................................................................................................................... 17
2.3 Total Productive Maintenance (TPM) ................................................................................. 18
2.3.1 Characteristics and objectives .................................................................................... 19
2.3.2 Conditions for application .......................................................................................... 20
2.3.3 Principles of TPM ....................................................................................................... 20
3 Preliminary investigation ..............................................................................................24
3.1 TPM Assessment ............................................................................................................... 25

3.1.1 Description of the TPM assessment tool .................................................................... 25
3.1.2 Respondents .............................................................................................................. 25
3.2 Results............................................................................................................................... 25
3.3 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 27
4 Main investigation ........................................................................................................28
4.1 Objectives ......................................................................................................................... 28
4.2 Research questions............................................................................................................ 28
4.3 Sub-questions .................................................................................................................... 29
4.4 Method of main investigation ............................................................................................ 29
4.5 Research boundary ............................................................................................................ 30
5 Theoretical framework .................................................................................................31
5.1 Cultural awareness ............................................................................................................ 31
5.2 Elimination of losses .......................................................................................................... 34
6 Diagnosis within the ‘Cultural Awareness’ principle.....................................................40
6.1 Method of the survey ........................................................................................................ 40
6.2 Analysis of the data ........................................................................................................... 42
6.3 Survey results .................................................................................................................... 45
6.3.1 Mean scores of the questionnaire items .................................................................... 45
6.3.2 Descriptive statistics & Cronbach’s Alpha ................................................................... 45
6.3.3 Summary of the questionnaire results ....................................................................... 49
6.4 Multiple Regression analysis .............................................................................................. 51
6.5 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 56
7 Diagnosis within the ‘Elimination of Losses’ principle ................................................57
7.1 Selection of a model machine ............................................................................................ 57
7.2 OEE measurement & target setting.................................................................................... 58
7.3 Determination of the causes of losses & creating improvements ....................................... 60

7.4 Embedding of improvements in standards ......................................................................... 62
7.5 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 63
8 Recommendations ........................................................................................................64
8.1 Improvement of the ‘cultural awareness’ .......................................................................... 64
8.1.1 Measuring & Evaluation ............................................................................................. 64
8.1.2 Communication & Information................................................................................... 66
8.1.3 Empowerment ........................................................................................................... 67
8.2 Improvement of the ‘elimination of losses’ process ........................................................... 67
8.2.1 Selection of a model machine .................................................................................... 67
8.2.2 OEE measurement & target setting ............................................................................ 68
8.2.3 Determination of the causes of losses & creating improvements............................... 69
8.2.4 Embedding of improvements in standards ................................................................. 69
9 Conclusions & Recommendations ................................................................................70
References ...........................................................................................................................71
Appendices ..........................................................................................................................74
Appendix 1: TPM Assessment tool ................................................................................................ 74
Appendix 2: ‘Cultural Awareness’ Questionnaire ........................................................................... 79
Appendix 3: Questionnaire Results................................................................................................ 82
Appendix 4: Production forms ....................................................................................................... 86

Abbreviations
AGP Finished products department
BAT / B.A.T. British American Tobacco
CBM Condition-based Maintenance
ERP Enterprise Resource Planning
FI-team Focused Improvement-team
FTS Factory Technical Support
MUBA Mean Units Between Assistance
OEE Overall Equipment Efficiency
OTS Operational Technical Support
PT Production Technician
PMD Primary Manufacturing Department
SMD Secondary Manufacturing Department
SOP Standard Operating Procedures
TPM Total Productive Maintenance
TQM Total Quality Management

1 Introduction
1.1 The history of British American Tobacco Niemeyer B.V.

The founder of the company is Meindert Niemeyer. He was born in 1793 and was educated in
business. In 1819 he started a shop/workshop where colonial products were sold and tobacco was
made. The business went well. In 1848 his son Theodorus Niemeyer started to take care over the
business.
Soon it became clear that Theodorus was a capable business man. A few years later he started a
tobacco factory and used very innovative machines. In the factory he produced his own brand “Het
Wapen van Rotterdam” and after a while he started to produce brands for other distributors as well.
In 1874 Theodorus Niemeyer bought tobacco factory “De Bijenkorf” and in 1887 the brand “De
Tabakshandel” was added. Niemeyer produced these brands till 1920. During the 19th century the
company was still selling other non-tobacco products, like Java koffiebonen (coffee beans), Zeeuwse
Chocolade (chocolate), tea and liquor.
In 1880 Theodorus’ son Willem became co owner of the company. Again the tobacco business went
very well and in 1890 they stopped producing coffee and tea. From that time on they focused totally on
producing and selling tobacco. In 1893 Theodorus retired. His two sons, Willem and Albert Willem,
went on with the business.
In the upcoming years the first steps for export were already made. In 1897 a warehouse was bought,
especially for mechanized wrapping of tobacco for export.
In 1904 opened a new factory at the Paterswoldseweg, next to the train station at the southwest side
of Groningen. In that time the factory was located outside the cultivated bowl, but due to the growth of
the city the factory nowadays lies completely within the city. In the meanwhile the company kept
growing. Lots of small companies like “De Schaapschoe”, “Onnes” and “Pfeiffer” were bought. During
th
the 19 century “Het Wapen van Rotterdam” was the best sold brand of Niemeyer. In the beginning of
the 20th century “Rood Krul Wapen” became the best sold brand. In that time “Samson” was already
one of the export brands. In the time between the two World Wars “Roode Ster” was the most sold
tobacco brand.
In 1909 the company bought a cigarette machine in Paris and the production of cigarettes started.
Most of them were exported. In the beginning the cigarette business was booming with a peak of 250
million sold cigarettes in the year 1919. In the following years the cigarette turnover decreased
because of the competition of other international cigarette brands.

After the crisis in 1929 (crash of Wall Street) the management of Niemeyer decided to stop the
production of cigarettes. However, the selling of shag and pipe tobacco kept rising. The market for
th
these products of Niemeyer was getting bigger. In the beginning of the 20 century the market was
st
restricted to the northern region of the Netherlands. After the 1 World War the company became one
of the largest tobacco producers in the country and also the export was strongly rising.
Logically, the 2nd World War resulted in a major setback in business activities. A shortage of raw
materials arose, the factory got damaged and a lot of employees were taken to work for the Germans.
One of the directors, Willem August Theodorus Niemeyer, was deported and died in 1945 in a German
concentration camp.
After the 2nd World War the business activities were slowly starting up again. The production machines
had become obsolete, there wasn’t sufficient foreign currency to buy raw materials and lots of other
products were still very scarce. Due to the Marshall help the Dutch situation in general became better
and Niemeyer recaptured its position in the market. In these years a lot of people started smoking
cigarettes instead of other tobacco products. Niemeyer restarted the cigarette production in 1950 with
“Roxy” as their main brand. In the sixties “Sterling” and “Samson” were the main shag brands and in
the pipe tobacco assortment “Clan, Holland House, Sail and Zephyr” were the best selling products.
Nowadays the driving shag brands are Samson, Lucky Strike, Javaanse Jongens and Pall Mall. The
company is exporting shag to more than 120 countries all over the world.
In the period after the war the company was continuously extended. The international relations with
other companies also increased. In countries like Canada, France and Germany selling departments
were established.
In 1969, when the company has its 150th anniversary, Theodorus Niemeyer B.V. becomes the
predicate “Koninklijke” (royal).
In 1974, Koninklijke Theodorus Niemeyer B.V. becomes part of the English Gallaher Ltd.
In 1990, Koninklijke Theodorus Niemeyer B.V. is sold by Gallaher Ltd. To Rothmans International.
In 1999, Rothmans International becomes part of British American Tobacco (BAT). And so, Koninklijke
Theodorus Niemeyer becomes part of British American Tobacco. Within BAT a separate business unit
“Smoking Tobacco and Cigars” (STC) exists. Niemeyer becomes an important part of it.
In the year 2004, when BAT clearly started the integration, the name Koninklijke Theodorus Niemeyer
is changed in “BAT Niemeyer”. The division’s name is also changed in “Other Tobacco Products”
(OTP). So in perspective to BAT globally, BAT Niemeyer is an OTP-factory which is part of the
“European Operations” department of BAT.

The company stops making pipe tobacco and cigars to reduce complexity. From this moment on shag
will be the only product that is made at BAT Niemeyer.
British American Tobacco is the second tobacco producer worldwide. The head office is located in
London and BAT is operating in over 180 countries. They have a 16.8% worldwide market share with
a portfolio of 300 brands. Well known international brands are: Pall Mall, Dunhill, Lucky Strike, Kent,
State Express 555, Benson & Hedges, Kool, Viceroy and Winfield. BAT has leadership in more than
50 countries and they employ over 53.000 people. They cooperate with more than 250.000 tobacco
farmers. In 2006 the cigarettes sales volume was 689 billion and in 2007 BAT made a £2.905 million
profit.
1.2 BAT Niemeyer’s mission and characteristics

Mission
According to the Company Plan 2009 the long term mission of BAT Niemeyer is “Maximizing our
contribution to BAT”. Worldwide, BAT Niemeyer wants to be the prime OTP-producer for BAT and
providing a sustainable base for their workforce.
Characteristics
In 2008 BAT Niemeyer produced 12.6 million kilograms of shag divided over 250 different types of
shag products for more then 40 countries all over the world. With about 340 employees (+/-180
directly related to production) BAT Niemeyer is a medium sized production company within the
tobacco business.
At the head of the company there is a Managing Director. As shown in the figure below the company is
divided into 7 departments and every department has a manager at the head of it. The department
managers report to the Managing Director. The department managers and the Managing Director
together form the so called Leadership Team (LT) of BAT Niemeyer.
Managing Director
Quality &
Business Product Human
Finance Supply Chain Manufacturing Product
Services Development Resource
Assurance
Figure 1: Organization chart BAT Niemeyer

1.3 Production process
The core process of BAT Niemeyer can be divided in two main parts:
1. Primary manufacturing department (PMD): preparation of the tobacco
2. Secondary manufacturing department (SMD): packing of the shag
The figure below is a schematic view of the production process.
Figure 2: Production process (schematic)
1.3.1 The primary manufacturing process (preparation)

The tobacco blend, which is related to the different shag brands and types, is a mélange containing
several different types of raw tobacco. The selection of these types of tobacco is done by “product
development” and “Leaf”. To guarantee a constant “product perception” for the customer a very
delicate process is designed. It starts with the selection of tobacco leafs in different countries all over
the world and ends with the drying of the tobacco (curen) in a typical manner. In a brand like Samson
the mélange contains about 21 different types of tobacco.
The preparation of a batch is selected and transported from the “raw tobacco’ storage. At this stage of
the process the tobacco has a 12% humidity and can be compared with dry leafs in autumn. The
batches of raw tobacco are being transported by a transportation system to a conditioning machine in
which the humidity will rise. For the production of shag it is important that the leafs are not being
damaged before they are being cut into long, thin wires. After conditioning the humidity of the leafs is
high enough to take the next step of the process. In this stage the tobacco is sauced and transported
to a silo. During this journey the tobacco’s humidity is raised again for further processing.
In the silo the different tobacco leafs are mixed to get the aimed mélange. From the silo the leafs are
transported to a cutting machine. Before they go into this machine the leafs are stretched and are laid

in the same direction. By doing this the stalk of the leaf can be cut in small pieces which results in a
higher quality of end-product. When the leafs are cut the tobacco is lead through a drying and cooling
machine to realize the aimed humidity. In some cases a flavor is added. The flavor machine is the last
station.
Then the tobacco is packed into aluminum bins and brought to the tobacco attic, where it will stay for
at least 24 hours. The humidity of the tobacco will now be between 19% and 27% (brand dependent).
This process of preparation is mainly mechanically automated. Human activity (related to the
processed kilos of tobacco) is very low and is mainly concentrated on steering the process.
1.3.2 The secondary manufacturing process (packing)

The end-product is a composition of different packing materials, the tobacco itself, and added
substances. In the market, on end-user level, there are several packing units; the pouch (laminate or
paper-insert), the block pack and the cardboard (can). The diversity of the packing machines equals
the diversity of the packing materials.
When a certain batch is scheduled for packing the needed packing materials are already transported
from inventory storage to the factory floor. The ingredients of an end-product are formulated in a BOM
(bill of materials). The associated blend is thrown directly from the tobacco attic into the packing
machine. The packing machine automatically packs, labels (tax banderoles) and weighs the products.
Then the units are packed in a transport box by a case packer and transported automatically to the
‘finished product’ department (AGP). Here the boxes are sent to storage or prepared for transport if
they are part of a customer order.
1.4 Production organization

Last year BAT Niemeyer carried out a reorganization under the name of project “Horizon”. The
structure of the production organization transformed from a 5-layer to a 4-layer hierarchical structure.
A realignment of tasks and responsibilities was carried out and some functions were replaced by
others. The functions of “team leader” and “production leader” were eliminated. The “area managers”
are now at the head of the so called “mini-factories” and within the teams there is no hierarchical
structure anymore. In the new structure more responsibility is assigned to the shop floor workers. The
new organizational structure of the manufacturing department is given in the figure below.

Figure 3: Organization structure of the manufacturing department after project “Horizon”
All the teams contain a Production Technician (PT), an All-round Operator and operators. The PT
serves as technical support in the team and also functions as a production operator. The former
engineering and maintenance tasks are now divided over the team PT’s, the Operational Technical
Support (OTS) and the Factory Technical Support (FTS). Operators will also carry out simple
maintenance tasks. OTS is mainly occupied with process improvement, control techniques and
training & education for the team members. FTS is responsible for projects and maintenance support.
1.5 Improvement of production process
1.5.1 Approach
Several years ago BAT Niemeyer decided to define their strategy in becoming a “World Class”
organization. Most of the initiated long term projects align with this strategy and contribute in becoming
an organization with this status. The company will strive to products which are always available for the
customer at the right place; the right time; with the required quality and for a good price.

Because of decreasing sale volumes and increasing pressure on margins BAT Niemeyer was obliged
to produce more effective and efficient. They are operating in a market with high price elasticity.
Setting higher prices for the end customer will result in a relative high loss in sale volumes or losses in
market share. Because of this BAT Niemeyer’s focus is on reducing costs to enlarge their profit margin
on the products. The production process at BAT Niemeyer can be counted to the semi-process
industry. High investments in expensive production machines are typical for organizations in this
industry. These production machines play an essential role in the process and a maximum utilization
of the machine park is desired.
Several years ago Total Productive Maintenance (TPM) is chosen by BAT Niemeyer as one of the
means to achieve this. TPM is a team based maintenance strategy which is developed to maximize
the equipment-efficiency of the production machines. By realizing a better occupation of the machines
one can produce a higher volume in the same time span. The cost price will decrease and with equal
selling prices the profit margins will rise. Another with coming advantage is a shorter cycle time.
Because of this shorter cycle time one can produce more flexible and will be able to deliver the
products faster.
1.5.2 Results
In spite of the initiation of a TPM program the results are not as expected. The equipment-efficiency
measured by BAT Niemeyer hardly increased since the start of the program. According to the data
from the organization several machines in the production process (e.g. mini-factory 1) are having an
equipment-efficiency around 50%. Ahlmann’s (1993) investigation showed a mean equipment-
efficiency around 60% in organizations in the Swedish industries. According to Nakajima (1989), the
founder of TPM, it is not unusual that identical companies implementing TPM reach an equipment-
efficiency of 90%. Moreover, cases were results stay away are not a rare phenomenon. According to
Shaffer & Thomson (1992) the majority of the investigated organizations which implemented (at least
tried to) TPM gained no or little results.
The management of BAT Niemeyer wants to reach a higher equipment-efficiency of the production
machines (and so an increased productivity) by means of an improved implementation of TPM within
the organization. Shortcomings in the implementation of TPM will have a negative impact on the
results. In concrete terms these are losses in the equipment-efficiency of the production machines
(Chan et al., 2005; Sharma et al., 2006).
2 Problem analysis and research plan

2.1 Problem analysis
According to the management of BAT Niemeyer TPM is not implemented properly in the current
situation, resulting in a relatively low equipment-effectiveness in different parts of the production
process. For the management it is difficult to assign a concrete cause to the failure, but it is clear for
them that, especially on team level, TPM is insufficiently embedded in the organization. In the new
organization structure (see chapter 1.3.3) the teams are responsible for controlling and carrying out
the process. The efficiency of the process should be consolidated and improved.
The management is wondering why the initiated TPM program at BAT Niemeyer still does not result in
an increase in the equipment-efficiency. But probably even more important: which actions have to be
taken by BAT Niemeyer to obtain the desired results? This investigation is aimed at finding the answer
to this question.
2.2 Research plan

In the current situation a discrepancy is expected to exist between the integration of TPM at BAT
Niemeyer and how it should be integrated in the desired situation according to the TPM theory. This
discrepancy has a negative influence on the equipment-efficiency and therefore it should be
minimized. To achieve this several steps have to be taken. First, the shortcomings of BAT Niemeyer in
functioning according to the prescriptions of TPM have to be determined. Then, the exact causes of
these shortcomings have to be identified. When the causes of the shortcomings in TPM at BAT
Niemeyer are determined, recommendations can be formulated to improve the situation.
Considering the time span of the investigation it will not be possible to investigate all the shortcomings
within TPM at BAT Niemeyer in detail. Because of this reason a preliminary investigation will be
carried out to expose the most severe shortcomings of BAT Niemeyer within TPM. These aspects of
TPM are less developed at BAT Niemeyer and have the highest potential for improvement. The
preliminary investigation will find an answer to the following research question:
 How does BAT Niemeyer score on the principles of TPM?
The preceding is visualized in the figure below.

Figure 4: The preliminary investigation; determination of the discrepancy in the 7 principles of TPM
Figure 4 shows that the shortcomings of BAT Niemeyer in the current situation will be tested based on
different ‘principles of TPM’. An assessment will be conducted in order to determine the degree in
which BAT Niemeyer works according to the prescriptions of TPM. The assessment tool is developed
within the University of Groningen (RUG). The assessment tool has two goals: first of all, it gives the
user insight to what degree the activities on the shop floor align with TPM and to what extent TPM has
penetrated the site. Secondly, it gives the user insight where TPM is not integrated, or insufficient, and
where action has to be taken to improve the situation.
2.3 Total Productive Maintenance (TPM)

In this paragraph basic information about the TPM concept will be given. The characteristics,
objectives and conditions for application of TPM will discussed. Then, a description of the 7 TPM
principles will be given.

2.3.1 Characteristics and objectives
TPM originated in 1971 in Japan. It is based on the American concept of ‘preventive maintenance’,
which is developed in the 60’s. From that moment on maintenance was not seen as an expense
anymore, but as a way to generate more profit. The Japanese ‘Nippon Denso’ was the one who
adopted the concept of the Americans and added the ‘T’ from ‘Total’ to it. According to the founder of
TPM, Nakajima, the definition of ‘Total’ in TPM can be formulated in three different ways:
1. Total efficiency of all the equipment in the organization;
2. total maintenance system for all the installations during their life cycle;
3. total cooperation of all the employees in the organization.
TPM strives to an increase of the productivity by improving the performance of the production
equipment. Productivity is the relation between effort and revenues, between input and output. Input
can be defined as labor, as capital, as raw materials, it concerns the total input. The output is formed
by finished products. As a result of TPM both labor productivity and the return on investments will be
influenced positively.
The TPM concept consists out of the following five elements (Nakajima, 1988):
1. TPM strives to maximization of the equipment-efficiency;
2. TPM establishes a thorough preventive maintenance system during the whole lifecycle of the
equipment;
3. TPM is integrated within several departments in the organization;
4. TPM involves all the employees, from top management to the shop floor workers;
5. TPM is an aggressive strategy which is focused on the improvement of the function and
design of the production equipment.
According to Aalders (1996) TPM is focused on all the activities related to the equipment which
influence the equipment-efficiency. It focuses also on the activities that take place outside the
‘available time for production’, like planned maintenance, modifications and constructing new
equipment. Because of the strong focus on ‘ownership’, TPM is often associated with strong
involvement on the shop floor. Teams will become “owners” of the equipment which implies a true
cultural change. The separation between controlling (operator) and repairing (mechanic) is being
raised and the teams will together become responsible for the functioning of the machine.
Kumar (2006) describes TPM as a cooperative relation between different functions and it promotes
production maintenance by means of motivation management and voluntary small-group activities. It

demands a horizontal structure in stead of conventional vertical structure which contains to much
authorities.
As mentioned earlier, TPM strives to the maximization of the equipment-effectiveness. The most
common manner to measure this effectiveness is using the metric called Overall Equipment Efficiency
(OEE). The OEE is calculated according to three parameters of the installation: the Availability (A), the
Efficiency (E) and the Quality (Q). (A) is a measure for the time that the installation is available for
production, (E) is a measure for the time that the machine actually produces and (Q) is a measure for
the amount of good produced products. By multiplying the parameters the OEE is calculated;
OEE= A * E * Q (Oechsner et al., 2003).
2.3.2 Conditions for application

In order to make TPM successful, an organization first has to comply with three conditions (Nakajima,
1988):
1. Yaruki: improvement of employee motivation;
2. Yaruude: improvement of employee skills;
3. Yaruba: improvement of employee working environment.
An implementation of TPM without firstly complying with the above conditions is doomed to fail. A
dangerous aspect of a TPM failure is the possibility that it will produce a negative association of it
among the employees. A negative association with TPM will hamper a successful implementation in
the future. To achieve results with TPM the whole organization, form top management to shop floor
workers, has to support the philosophy. Especially in the start-up phase it is important to create
commitment under the employees, but also further on in the process it will be essential.
2.3.3 Principles of TPM

The assessment is based on a categorization of TPM into 7 different principles (Hoondert, 1997). The
principles will now be discussed.
Cultural awareness
Cultural awareness under the employees forms a condition for a successful implementation of TPM.
TPM requires a narrow cooperation between different departments within the organization. When
implementing TPM two aspects are of great importance (Aalders, 1993):
1. during the implementation the behavior of the involved ones has to be changed in such a way
that it aligns with the prescriptions of TPM;
2. the involved ones have to get motivated to really deliver the desired performance.

The desired behavior contains: sticking to agreements, working conform standards, supporting
employees, identifying shortcomings and working in formal groups. The objective of TPM claims
continuous improvement of all the employees. Everyone in the organization contributes individually to
the goals of the organization. It is clearly a matter of major concern that every individual within the
organization supports the TPM philosophy to make it successful. To obtain this awareness the
management should actively propagate the principles of TPM.
5S
5S is focused on eliminating the losses in a workplace by organizing the workplace in an arranged and
clean manner. On the workplace all the needed equipment, materials and tools have a fixed place.
There is a place for everything, and everything is in its place. Time spent searching for a part is
eliminated. 5S is originated in Japan. The 5S stands for:
 Sort (seiri);
 Set in order (seiton);
 Shine / Sweep (seiso);
 Standardize (seiketsu);
 Sustain (shitsuku).
The steps have to be executed in the preceding order. The majority of the principles are based on the
fact that workplaces are organized according to the 5S principle. For this reason, 5S forms, just like
cultural awareness, an important condition to make TPM successful.
Training & Education
Training and Education is also a principle which is of major importance during the first phase of the
TPM implementation. Knowledge need to have knowledge about the basic principles of TPM. The
training of the employees, and operators in particular, is of importance within TPM because the range
of tasks will be extended. By means of training the employees will be enabled to satisfy the specific
requirements set by TPM. Without proper training an operator is for example not able to carry out
maintenance tasks.
Another important aspect of TPM, which requires education and training, is carrying out the tasks
according to standard operating procedures (SOP). By standardizing working processes the human
activities related to the equipment can be controlled and with that a certain level of productivity can be
consolidated. When consolidation is reached the processes have to be improved to realize an
increase in the efficiency of the production machines.

An additional advantage of training and educating of the operators is the motivating aspect. Because
their range of tasks will be extended the operators will become more aware of their own capabilities
and qualities.
Elimination of losses
TPM’s main goal is to increase the productivity by means of improvement of the Overall Equipment
Efficiency (OEE). Shortcomings in the area of TPM will result in losses in the OEE. The OEE makes a
distinction between different types of losses and categorizes them. As mentioned earlier the OEE is
calculated by three different variables: availability (A), efficiency (E) and quality (Q) (Nicholas, 1998;
Oechsner et al., 2003). By multiplying the three parameter the OEE will be calculated (OEE = A * E *
Q). The three parameters are determined by the so called ‘six big losses’ (Nicholas, 1998). In the table
below the ‘six big losses’ are related to the three variables.
1. Downtime from sporadic or chronic equipment breakdowns

Availability (A)
2. Downtime from equipment setup and adjustments
3. Idling and minor stoppages

Efficiency (E)
4. Reduced speed of operation
5. Defect products caused by variability in equipment performance

Quality (Q)
6. Reduced yield caused by non-optimal operation
Figure 5: The OEE- parameters categorized into the ‘six big losses’ (Nicholas, 1998).
The first two types of losses influence the Availability. Losses 3 and 4 influence the Efficiency
parameter and losses 5 and 6 determine the Quality parameter of the OEE.
By a categorization of the losses an organization is better able to analyze the losses. The causes of
the different types of losses can be retrieved by means of several cause-analysis methods. The cause
analysis has to be done in a systematic way by small-group activities. When the causes are exposed
ideas for improvement have to be generated. Then, the improvement proposals have to be
transformed into adjustments in the production equipment or the working processes (SOP). By
eliminating the losses according to the preceding procedure the OEE will form the basis for future
improvement actions. So, it is essential that the measurement of the OEE is done in a correct manner.
Preventive Maintenance

The existence of losses can be assigned to many causes. One of the most common causes of losses
in the equipment-efficiency is downtime because of equipment breakdowns. Preventive maintenance
focuses at preventing breakdowns by carrying out planned maintenance. Planned maintenance aims
at preventing a decline in the equipment’s condition by predicting it and eliminating it. Within
preventive maintenance, periodic or planned maintenance is more and more taken over by the so
called predictive maintenance.
Predictive maintenance, or condition-based maintenance (CBM) attempts to evaluate the condition of

equipment by performing periodic or continuous (online) equipment condition monitoring. The ultimate
goal of predictive maintenance is to perform maintenance at a scheduled point in time when the
maintenance activity is most cost-effective and before the equipment loses optimum performance.
This is in contrast to time- and/or operation count-based maintenance, where a piece of equipment
gets maintained whether it needs it or not. Time-based maintenance is labor intensive, ineffective in
identifying problems that develop between scheduled inspections, and is not cost-effective (Jardine et
al., 2006).
The "predictive" component of predictive maintenance stems from the goal of predicting the future
trend of the equipment's condition. This approach uses principles of statistical process control to
determine at what point in the future maintenance activities will be appropriate. Most inspections are
performed while equipment is in service, thereby minimizing the disruption of normal system
operations. Adoption of predictive maintenance can result in substantial cost savings and higher
system reliability.
Autonomous maintenance
When a certain level of equipment-efficiency is reached by eliminated losses, the next step is to
consolidate the OEE at that level. Problems or defects which occur in the process are in most cases
firstly detected by the operators controlling the production machines. Considering this fact it would be
ideal if the operator also maintains the machine. However, because of the increasing technical
complexity of the production equipment it is impossible for the operator to carry out total maintenance.
Due to this change, the maintenance and the operation of the machines are divided into two different
tasks. TPM takes it for granted that a strict separation of these two disciplines leads to lower
involvement of the operator with the equipment resulting in lower awareness for the condition of the
machine. Defects and other problems will eventually occur more often which will lead to decrease in
the OEE. By increasing the involvement of the operator problems will be detected in an earlier stage.
Then, the problems can directly be solved and will prevent the occurrence of more severe problems
and defects. The prevention of these bigger problems has a positive influence on the OEE.
To increase the involvement of the operator the range of tasks will be extended. Besides controlling
the machine, the operator will also carry out maintenance tasks. This part of relatively simple

maintenance tasks will be taken from the maintenance employees and is called “autonomous
maintenance”. To enable autonomous maintenance for the operators it is necessary that the
maintenance department has set standard operating procedures.
Early Equipment Management
The elimination of losses and the consolidation of the reached level of OEE by carrying out preventive
and autonomous maintenance, contribute to the objective of TPM. However, it would be even more
efficient when the new equipment produces at a high OEE level from the moment of installation. In that
case it will not be necessary to eliminate the losses before the consolidation of the OEE can begin.
New production equipment can be delivered with a certain level of effectiveness. The discipline of
designing and building of equipment containing a high initial OEE is called “early equipment
management”. Besides the goal of delivering the equipment with a high efficiency it has another goal:
controlling the design- and built process of equipment in such a manner that future aspects are
predictable. These aspects are:
 quality;
 life-cycle costs;
 flexibility of the production process;
 costs of production automation;
 intrinsic safety of the production process
In early equipment management it is essential, just like in autonomous maintenance, that a narrow
cooperation between production, maintenance and engineering exists. Requirements of all the three
disciplines have to be taken into account to achieve the best results.
3 Preliminary investigation
In this chapter an assessment will be carried out in order to indicate the lowest scoring principles of
TPM at BAT Niemeyer. The two principles assessed with the lowest score will form the focus for the
main investigation.

3.1 TPM Assessment
3.1.1 Description of the TPM assessment tool

The assessment tool consists of several statements related to TPM (see appendix 1). Each of the 7
TPM-principles is represented by around 9 statements, which have to be assessed by the participant
with a score from zero to four (0, 1, 2, 3, and 4). A statement assessed with (4) means that the
participant totally agrees with the statement. A score of (0) implicates that the participant totally
disagrees.
3.1.2 Respondents
To eliminate subjectivity the assessment has to be carried out with as many respondents as possible.
However, the respondents are required to have broad knowledge about the organization and must be
narrowly involved with the production process and the TPM implementation. The production- and the
quality manager were the only employees at BAT Niemeyer which fulfilled these requirements. To
make the outcome more objective I personally, as researcher, participated in the assessment as well. I
was able to participate in the assessment based on the knowledge that I obtained by observations,
conversations and documents analysis during the first months of my investigation.
3.2 Results
In the first radar graph (figure 6) the mean scores are shown for each participant individually. The
second radar graph (figure 7) shows the mean score of the three participants per principle. The scores
are given on a 0-10 scale (sum of given scores per principle / total possible score per principle X 10).
The original results per individual can be found in appendix 1.

Figure 6: TPM Assessment: Mean scores per respondent
If we look at figure 6 it can be stated that the mean scores per principle are not widely spread. The
quality manager is in general slightly more positive about the situation, but the form of the graph is
almost similar to the others.

Figure 7: TPM Assessment mean scores (average of the three respondents)
If we consider the second radar graph (figure 7), with the overall mean scores, it can be noticed that
especially the principles ‘cultural awareness’ and ‘elimination of losses’ are low valued by the
respondents with an overall mean score of 4,8. In the table below the scores are given per principle in
ascending order.
Principle Score (0-10)
Cultural Awareness 4,8
Elimination of Losses 4,8
Preventive Maintenance 6,3
5S 6,5
Autonomous Maintenance 7,2
Education & Training 7,5
Early Equipment Management 7,8
Figure 8: Assessment’s mean scores TPM principles at BAT Niemeyer.
The scores given in the table above are the mean scores of the three respondents per principle. The
scores reflect the perceptions of three individual respondents and so they are subjective.
Nevertheless, we assume that they are useful to give a proper indication of the current status in
relation to the TPM principles.
3.3 Conclusions
The preliminary investigation is conducted to indicate what the least developed principles of TPM at
BAT Niemeyer are and where improvement has the highest priority. This indication has been done by
means of the TPM assessment tool of the Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. The preliminary investigation
has to answer the following research question:
How does BAT Niemeyer score on the principles of TPM?
The main investigation will focus on the improvement of BAT Niemeyer within the two principles which
are indicated with the lowest scores. The ‘cultural awareness’ and the ‘elimination of losses’ principles
were valued with the lowest mean score of 4,8.

In order to make TPM successful at BAT Niemeyer it is essential to realize ‘cultural awareness’ among
the employees. They have to be aware of the prescriptions of TPM and they have to know what is
expected in their daily tasks to contribute to the organization’s goals.
The ‘elimination of losses’ is directly focused on increasing the OEE. The maximization of the OEE in
fact forms the main objective of TPM.
4 Main investigation
4.1 Objectives
The objective of the main investigation is based on the DOV-model (diagnosis, design, change)
created by De Leeuw (2000). In the first stage of the investigation, the diagnosis, the causes of the low
scores for the two principles at BAT Niemeyer have to be determined. Based on the diagnosis
recommendations for elimination of the causes will be formulated. This part of the investigation is
called the design. The actual implementation of the recommendations, the change, will be done by
BAT Niemeyer and lies beyond the scope of this investigation.
The research goal of the main investigation contains two parts which can be formulated as follows:
1. Making a diagnosis in which the causes for the relative low integration of the TPM principles
‘cultural awareness’ and ‘elimination of losses’ at BAT Niemeyer will be exposed;
2. formulating recommendations within the TPM principles ‘cultural awareness’ and ‘elimination
of losses’, in order to achieve a structural improved implementation of these principles at BAT
Niemeyer.
The recommendations that will be made have to be aimed at achieving a ‘structural’ improvement. In
this context ‘structural’ implies embedding the improvements in the organization. This means that the
improved implementation of the principles will be maintained for the long-term. The improved
implementation will result in an increase of the equipment-efficiency.
4.2 Research questions

The research question which will be answered by the main investigation is:
1. Which causes can be assigned to the relative low scores for the TPM principles ‘cultural
awareness’ and ‘elimination of losses’ at BAT Niemeyer?

2. How can BAT Niemeyer achieve a structural improved implementation of the TPM principles
‘cultural awareness’ and ‘elimination of losses’ resulting in an increased equipment-efficiency
of the production machines?
4.3 Sub-questions
In order to answer the main research question it will be split into two separate parts. The first part,
existing out of sub-questions 1 and 2, concerns the investigation related to the ‘cultural awareness’
principle:
1. Which causes can be assigned to the existing lack of ‘cultural awareness’ at BAT
Niemeyer?
2. How can an increased ‘cultural awareness’ be realized and embedded within BAT
Niemeyer?
The second part concerns the investigation within the ‘elimination of losses’ principle:
3. Which causes can be assigned to the relatively low score on the ‘elimination of
losses’ principle at BAT Niemeyer?
4. How can an improved implementation of the ‘elimination of losses’ principle be

realized and embedded within BAT Niemeyer?
4.4 Method of main investigation

The data sources that will be used during the main investigation are:
 Scientific literature: articles, books;

 BAT Niemeyer: employees, database documents;
 the Internet.
Sub-questions 1 & 2
In order to answer the first two sub-questions a further investigation in the literature will be done
related to the ‘cultural awareness’ principle. In the literature means for the realization of ‘awareness’
have to be determined. Based on the theoretical framework and common sense a questionnaire will
be constructed. By conducting the survey the actual degree of cultural awareness among the
employees, and the related causes, can be determined. Besides the questionnaire, additional semi-
structured interviews with employees (area manager, shop floor workers) will be done if necessary. All
the activities will take place within mini-factory 1.

By means of the mentioned data collection activities it will be possible to review the situation at BAT
Niemeyer with theory. Then, based on the diagnosis, recommendations for achieving and embedding
awareness can be formulated.
Sub-questions 3 & 4
In order to answer sub-questions 3 and 4 the concept of ‘elimination of losses’ further investigation will
be done in literature. By conducting literature research the characteristics of the principle will be
defined in more detail. Then, by means of semi-structured interviews with the area managers and
shop floor workers (operators, production technicians), observations on the shop floor and analysis of
existing documents in the database, the situation at BAT Niemeyer will be analyzed. In the database
the main part of the documents within BAT Niemeyer are stored, like OEE-reports, operating
procedures, Kaizen documents, project documents, performance results, instruction guides, etc.
The collected information will be analyzed and causes for a lacking ‘elimination of losses’ will be
determined and recommendations for improvement can be made.
4.5 Research boundary

The investigation will be conducted within mini-factory 1. In this part of the factory the shag is divided into
portions and packed by means of so called ‘paper-insert’ machines. Mini-factory 1 contains 15 machines
which are divided over 6 teams. The teams work 16 hours per day separated in two shifts of 8 hours. As
mentioned before the teams are self-regulating (autonomous) and have no hierarchy.
The demarcation of the investigation within mini-factory 1 has several reasons. In the schematic view the
production process (chapter 1.3) is divided into two main departments: the Primary (PMD) and the
Secondary (SMD). From the KPI-dashboard (database) it becomes clear that the productivity (Kg / man-
hour) of the SMD is much lower than the PMD’s productivity. SMD had in January 2009 a mean
productivity of 53 kg per man-hour against a mean of 125 kg per man-hour at the PMD. Considering the
characteristics of the two production processes a clear explanation for this difference can be found. The
process at the PMD is a continuous process, in which large amounts of shag are produced in a relative
short amount of time. The process is less labor-intensive and less sensitive for breakdowns and other
efficiency losses. On the other hand, the SMD process is a packing process where the machines have to
execute complex and accurate operations, like weighing small portions of shag. The paper-insert
machines are built of complex, mechanical parts which have to be maintained well. The process in the
SMD is less robust than the PMD process.
The focus of the production planning lies at the SMD. It often happens that several teams are behind on
planning, because of machine breakdowns. The production at SMD is planned in such a manner that
tobacco changes on machines, resulting in time-consuming (45min according to planning) setups, are

minimized. The PMD is in general far more capable of producing according to the planning. To avoid
idleness in the SMD a buffer is placed between PMD and SMD on the so called ‘tobacco attic’.
From the preceding facts it can be concluded that TPM can be of great influence on the production
process by increasing the equipment-effectiveness. Especially, at the SMD where a relative low
productivity is realized, TPM can be very helpful.
5 Theoretical framework
To determine the causes of the current state of awareness it is first important to define the exact
meaning of the term ‘cultural awareness’ and how it can be obtained . In chapter 5.2 the ‘elimination of
losses’ principle will be defined.
5.1 Cultural awareness

The creation of awareness means that the behavior of the employees will change in such a manner
that it will align with the rules of TPM. The involved ones have to be motivated to achieve the
necessary performance (Aalders, 1993). So, besides the fact that the employees are aware of the new
rules they also have to be motivated to change their behavior and be willing to obey the rules of the
new culture. Employee’s ‘awareness’ of the rules is not sufficient. The will and motivation, or
commitment, to work according these rules is even more important. Intangible factors such as
involvement, ownership, and understanding are the key issues in obtaining commitment, because they
affect the characteristics (perceptions, attitudes, expectations, values) of individuals.
A change of culture has to be realized which will motivate and involve the people in the process of
TPM in which employee understanding and support is present. Different writers see the creation of
commitment as the first step in the implementation of TPM. Several papers on TPM (and TQM)
implementation, e.g. Allen & Kilmann (2001) and Bamber et al. (1999) have recognized cultural
change to be vital in the implementation process. In particular change related to obtaining employee
and management commitment. Kanji & Asher (1993) accentuate the difficulty of creating the right
culture during the implementation of TPM: “changing things is much easier than changing people”.
Management commitment is clearly a key factor which must be present before initiating an
implementation process. Management is responsible for the availability of resources and the overall
implementation approach. So, management commitment is a prerequisite. However management
commitment can decrease during the process, for example, due to:

 Unclear understanding of what is being done, and of the objectives and methodologies of the
concept (Clark, 1991; Hipkin and Lockett, 1995).
 Perceived threats to supervisors and mangers’ roles (Bardoel and Sohal, 1999).
 Failure to produce results quickly where management has little patience to await benefits and
is looking for short-term returns on investment (Schawn and Khan, 1994; Laszo,
1999).Withdrawal of management support may also occur when benefits cannot be identified
or attributed to the concept implemented (Bowler and Leonard, 1994).
Employee commitment is also necessary since employees actually execute the activities during the
implementation and after completion. Employees’ willingness to change to a TPM-culture can be
affected negatively for various reasons (Hansson et al., 2003):
 demoralized staff may resist change due to, for example, fear of losing jobs, status affected or
negative experience of earlier problematic change projects;
 unwillingness to change due to stressful work conditions or not understanding the process, i.e.
personnel are unable to see the benefits of the implementation;
 conservatism, or upholding existing practices, stemming from insufficient knowledge of the

new working methods.
Uncommitted management and employees are obviously severe obstacles for managing the change.
Characteristics of individuals play an important role in obtaining commitment. Perceptions, attitudes,
expectations and values could obstruct acceptance of and motivation to work with a TPM
implementation (Saad and Siha, 2000; Tsang and Chan, 2000; Schawn and Kahn, 1994).
Hansson and Backlund (2003) identified activities that influence intangible factors (involvement,
understanding, ownership) and affect commitment. They identified several categories to be important
in managing commitment (see figure 9):
 Support and leadership, making employees feel recognized, and visibly showing the
significance of the implementation to motivate employees (Allen and Kilmann, 2001).
Management should also consider the work environment, i.e. whether employees have the
time and resources for improvement efforts; this is fundamental for ensuring that employees
willingly comply with the implementation (Cooke, 2000)
 Strategic planning, which implies activities which link TPM to the company mission, vision
and defined business strategy, and strategic priorities and goals (Bardoel and Sohal, 1999).

This gives a clear picture of how the improvement will benefit the organization and promote
desired achievements such as management and employee understanding.
 Planning the implementation, which implies developing a clear scope in order to identify
obstacles and driving forces (Hipkin and Lockett, 1995). This facilitates monitoring and follow-
up, which promotes desired achievements such as management and employee
understanding and involvement. It also implies activities which promote the participation of all
concerned parties (e.g. front-line staff, unions, and management), usually by means of small
teams, in goal setting, and identifying solutions (Schawn and Khan, 1994). The participation
of employees promotes desired achievements such as involvement and ownership.
 Buying-in and empowerment, which implies activities such as selling the concept to each
group, identifying what each group or level of employees and management want (Allen and
Kilmann, 2001; Bamber et al, 1999). Buy-in activities promote desired achievements such as
involvement and ownership, and facilitate the identification and control of expectations.
Empowerment activities, such as sharing responsibility, promote involvement, job
satisfaction, independence and ownership among employees.
 Training and education, which implies activities that develop employee competence, skills
and knowledge (Bardoel and Sohal, 1999). Training promotes employee belief that the
company is investing in them; it also supports understanding and awareness.
 Measuring and evaluation, which implies activities such as obtaining measurable and
quantified results and objectives, so as to have a clear scope and focus, and continually
monitoring and following through the process (Bamber et al, 1999). This reveals progress and
results that promote management and employee involvement and understanding. Employees
have to see how they can personally benefit from the change, while management must see
how it benefits the company. Measuring and evaluation yields feedback on results that
promote creation of a motivated management which continuously provides resources and
support for the implementation. Such management also motivates and engages employees
as they experience progress (Allen and Kilmann, 2001).
 Communication and information, which implies open and valuable communication with all the
employees within the organization about the aims and goals of the TPM concept. Informing
all the employees about the goal of the implementation and making clear what the
implementation means for the daily tasks of the employee personally (Tsang and Chan,
2000). Communication and information promote desired achievements such as
understanding and involvement.

Figure 9: Important categories in managing commitment (Hansson et al., 2003)
The management of commitment according to the above standards increases the chance that
employees will support the implementation. Employee support and commitment will increase the
chance of a successful implementation of TPM.
5.2 Elimination of losses

The low score on the ‘elimination of losses’ principle is caused by a lacking elimination of losses
process. The main goal of the elimination of losses process is maximization of the equipment-
efficiency by eliminating losses. These losses are indicated by measurement of the Overall Equipment
Effectiveness. These losses in equipment-efficiency are results of shortcomings in TPM and form a
basis for improvement actions. This process of measuring the OEE losses and using it as a basis for
future actions forms the core activity of TPM (Aalders, 1993; Ljungberg, 2008). According to Beer et al.
(1992) and Shaffer & Thomson (1992) in most cases a lack of focus on results could be seen as the
main cause of the TPM failure. Organizations should focus more on results instead of activities. By
directly eliminating the losses in the equipment-efficiency of the production machine this focus will be
obtained. Moreover, achieving quick results in the early stage of implementation will create recognition
and trust under the employees.
The different activities in the process of elimination of losses (Aalders, 1993; Chan et al., 2005) are
given in figure 10. In this chapter the different steps will be discussed.

Elimination of losses
Determine model-machine
OEE measure + target setting
Determine direct/ indirect causes

of losses
FI-
Create ideas for improvement team
Continuous Improvement
Fix improvements in standards
Extend standards
Figure 10: Process of ‘elimination of losses’ (adapted from Aalders, 1993; Chan et al, 2005)
Model machine
A critical step in the early stage of TPM implementation is the selection of a model machine. By
selecting a model machine it possible to focus your sources firstly on one machine, instead of using a
‘big bang’ strategy. The results of the model machine at an early stage would have a crucial
psychological/morale effect (Lycke, 2003). It is obvious that TPM implementation requires extra costs
for the change of current machine performance and procedure in which all of these are not easy to
quantify. As a result, the selected model machine needs to have significant improvement compared to
other non-TPM machines after the TPM implementation (Chan et al., 2005). Moreover, the
improvements and lessons within TPM can be extended to the remaining machines and are much
faster as the model machine is acting as a guideline for the replication. Criteria for model machine
selection can be developed as follows:
 Bottleneck process among the whole production line;
 Unique machine in production;

 Low availability or low Mean Unit Between Assists (MUBA = total number of units produced /
number of stoppages).
OEE measure and target setting
In TPM system, all machines need to have a clear and quantifiable target no matter whether it is a
model machine or a follower machine. TPM effectiveness measurement is usually made by the OEE
measurement, which was already determined as a function of availability, performance efficiency and
quality rate. The wastes can be categorized into the so called ‘six big losses’ (Nicholas, 1998):
1. Downtime from sporadic or chronic equipment breakdowns.
2. Downtime from equipment setup and adjustments.
These two losses affect the availability of a machine. The more time the equipment is stopped for
setups or repairs, the less time remaining for it to do work.
3. Idling and minor stoppages (machine is running, but parts flowing to it periodically jam or
parts flowing from it are momentarily blocked because the next machine is broken down).
4. Reduced speed of operation (equipment is running, but at a reduced speed because it is

worn out or needs adjustment).
These two losses in combination affect the equipment efficiency. Equipment that is periodically
interrupted by shortages, or that produces at a rate less than its standard capacity takes longer than
necessary to do the work. The following losses affect the quality variable of the OEE:
5. Defect products caused by variability in equipment performance.
6. Reduced yield caused by non-optimal operation.
Equipment that is worn-out or near breakdown causes defects and increases process variability.
The calculation of the OEE using the six major losses is shown in the figure below.

Figure 11: Calculation of the OEE
For TPM implementation for the model machine, a simple method for monitoring the performance of
machine like the MUBA can also be used instead of OEE. In most cases the number of stoppages and
produced items can automatically be monitored and recorded by the machine. Besides the MUBA,
target values that are used are; “number of improvements (Kaizen)”, “number of one-point lessons
(OPL)” and the “number of suggestions” made in a certain period.
Nevertheless, performance measures should adhere to some basic criteria if they are to be effective.
Tangen (2002) suggests that:
 The measures must be derived from strategic objectives to ensure that employees’ behavior is
in line with corporate goals.
 The measures must provide timely, relevant and accurate feedback, from both a long-term
and short-term perspective.
 Measurement should be undertaken in ways that easily understood by those whose

performance is being evaluated.
 Measurement should be accomplished by a limited number of performance measures that

consist of both financial and non-financial measures.

Proper measurement is relevant because TPM has a strong hierarchical structure of target setting
which leads from top management to shop floor. The organization’s main goals, set by the
management, form a direct input for the target settings on the shop floor and are not distracted from
sub-goals. An example of a main goal is a 5% raise of the equipment-effectiveness on a yearly basis.
All the activities on the shop floor are then focused on achieving this goal and every employee
contributes his or her part. Ideas for improvement are examined based on their contribution to the
main goals of the organization.
Determination of the causes of losses
Within TPM goals are often determined in terms of an OEE increase. So, existing losses in the OEE
have to be eliminated. The causes of losses can be analyzed by several different methods. Initially,
using the pareto-analysis (20% of the causes are responsible for 80% of the losses) a selection of the
most harmful losses must be made. These losses will form the focus of further investigation. It is
important to know if these losses have an incidental or structural character. Incidental losses have a
small chance on a repeated existence and the cause is not locked in the structure of the organization
(human, machine, material and method). Structural losses have a frequent existence and their causes
are locked in the organization’s structure (Aalders, 1993). Human, machines, material and method
together form the structure which is built out of standard operating procedures (SOP). Structural
losses result from following these standards. To determine if a loss is structural or incidental the cause
has to be found. For finding the primary cause of a loss several methods for cause analysis exist.
Examples of cause analysis methods are (Aalders, 1993):
 Fishbone analysis (Ishikawa-diagram);

 Failure Mode Effect and Criticality Analysis (FMECA);
 Failure tree analysis;
 Pareto analysis;
 Organizational investigation;
 Brainstorming;
 Physical modeling analysis;
 Why, why, because, logical analysis.
Focused Improvement-team
When the OEE is measured the direct and indirect causes of the losses have to be determined. A
cross-functional team will solve the root causes/problems and will drive improvements. This
specialized ‘small-group-activity’ team is often named a “focused improvement team” (FI-team). The
FI-team is occupied with all activities that maximize the overall effectiveness of equipment and help
the organization in elimination of major losses and improvement of performance. The FI-team is a

cross-functional team with members from engineering, maintenance group and production (Chan et al,
2005) and often the factory manager is also included (which shows the importance of improvement
activities). In this way the three different disciplines are directly connected and the necessary
knowledge is present. Creativity and ability to innovate are essential characteristics of the team. The
FI-team has regularly formal meetings and have a plan used for the implementation of continuous
improvement by means of improvement projects. The plan can be structured in the following stages
(Garcia Arca et al, 2008):
1. Design of the improvement plan (objectives) and definitions of guidelines. The improvement
plan includes the various improvement projects developed by the FI-team.
2. Approval of the proposed plan by the company management (implying commitment to it).
3. Presentation of the project (management team, works committee, personnel).
4. Implementation. Pilot experience (model machine).
5. Evaluation of results and tracking mechanism.
6. Extension to other areas of the factory.
Embedding of improvements in standards
When a loss turns out to have a structural cause it will lead to an adjustment in the standards. By
changing the standard the cause of the loss, and so the loss itself, will be eliminated.
When maximizing the productivity of the production-installation it is necessary to control human activity
around this installation. Production, engineering and maintenance are the disciplines which are of
influence on the installation. By means of standardizing working processes in standard operating
procedures (SOP) a certain level of productivity can be consolidated. The relation between human
activity, equipment-efficiency and productivity within TPM is given in the figure below.
Figure 12: Relation between human activity, equipment-efficiency and productivity (Aalders, 1993).
By laying down working processes in SOP’s a certain situation can be fixed. Which means that a
certain level of equipment-efficiency can be fixed. Then, by using creativity and innovation ability these

standards can be improved. Within TPM all the employees are expected to contribute to this process
of continuous improvement. Coming up with ideas for improvement has to be rewarded. The proposed
improvements have to be examined in detail before they eventually will become the new standard and
are embedded in the organization
This continuous process of elimination of losses, which mainly consists out of consolidation and
improvement, is a never ending aim at perfection.
6 Diagnosis within the ‘Cultural Awareness’

principle
In this chapter the causes of a relative low level of ‘cultural awareness’ will be investigated by means
of a survey. The results will be presented and discussed.
6.1 Method of the survey

In order to determine the current level of commitment and related causes under the shop floor workers
at BAT Niemeyer a survey is done. The survey was done in June 2009, in the factory canteen of mini-
factory 1 and 2. Although the boundary is determined around mini-factory 1 the shop floor workers of
mini-factory 2 were useful for the questionnaire. They work on the same work floor, with identical rules,
some identical machines, in the same culture, etc. So, it is assumed that their perception of the
enabling activities does not differ from the shop floor in mini-factory 1. The respondents were
approached during their coffee break. 38 (out of the +/- 90) respondents were willing to fill in the
questionnaire. Three of them turned out to be temporary employees and were not able to fill in the
questionnaire. These respondents were deleted out of the data. All the other 35 respondents had no
‘missing values’, so they were all useful for the survey.
The questionnaire is created by the researcher and derived from the model of Hansson and Backlund
(2003) and the related descriptions of the activities. They identified activities that influence intangible
factors and affect commitment during the change process (see figure 13).

Figure 13: Important categories in managing commitment (Hansson & Backlund, 2003)
The questionnaire consists out of 19 statements. The first 18 statements are created to determine how
the shop floor workers experience and value the ‘enabling activities’. Statement 19 is formulated to
determine the current state of employee commitment. Each category of activities is represented in the
questionnaire by at least 1 and at maximum 4 statements.
The statements can be valued by a so called ‘5-point Likert-scale’. A likert-scale questionnaire

consists out of statements. The respondents have to value their level of agreement with the statement.
Likert-scale statements are relative easy to answer for the respondents compared to most other types
of questions. The assignment of different standard answers creates the possibility to measure intensity
instead of ‘hard’ yes or no answer. Mere over, Likert-scale answers are relative easy to process in the
analysis. In the questionnaire the respondents had to value the statements with a score from 1 to 5:
1 = totally disagree;
2 = partly disagree;
3 = neutral;
4 = partly agree;
5 = totally agree.
Furthermore the next characteristics and assumptions are essential for further analysis of the data:
 The above labeling is bivalent (distinctly two-directional) and symmetrical;

 The assumption is made that the intervals of the labeled measures are equally spaced. So,
unless the discrete nature, the variables will be considered on interval level instead of ordinal
level;
 All the statements are formulated positive. The higher the score, the more positive the
judgment of the respondent is;
 Even if the distribution of the individual observations is not normal, the distribution of the
sample means will be normally distributed because the sample size is 35 (n >30)(Malhotra,
2007) ;
 The survey asks the respondent for a judgment, or a meaning, so it is subjective.
The questionnaire can be found in Appendix 2.
6.2 Analysis of the data

In order to analyze the data from the questionnaire several steps will be taken. The analysis will be
conducted with the help of the statistics software SPSS (v.17.0). The steps are based on the construct
of the conceptual model from Hansson & Backlund (2003) in which the “7 categories of enabling
activities” are assumed to be success factors or predictors of the dependent variable “employee
commitment”. A more detailed description of the model can be found in chapter 5.1.
Descriptive statistics
In the first step the items per category will be analyzed in a descriptive way by using frequency charts,
means and standard deviations. Some variables are represented by one item and some are
represented by a group of items. These items will be described individually and the variable as a
whole will be discussed.
Homogeneity
In the questionnaire statements are formulated to determine the current level of the enabling activities.
Each category is represented by one or a group of statements. These statements are considered to
measure the same aspect. This has to be tested in advance before further analysis. For the
measurement of the level of homogeneity of these groups a reliability analysis will be done. The
statistical test that will be used is Cronbach’s Alpha. Cronbach’s Alpha is a number between 0 and 1 to
indicate the level of homogeneity i.e. the level of measuring the same concept.
Cronbach’s Alpha will be used according to the following conditions:

Value Cronbach’s Alpha Action
Delete the items with lowest “item total correlation” value and/or the highest
< 0,60 “alpha if item is deleted” value. Do it stepwise. If alpha remains < 0,60 after
repeated elimination it will be impossible to form a scale based on the remaining
items and the calculation of a “summated scale” is not allowed.
Delete the items with the lowest “item total correlation” value and/or the
highest “alpha if item is deleted” value. Do it stepwise to increase the value of
Between 0,60 – 0,80 alpha. By doing this a trade-off needs to be made between the increase of alpha
and the amount of eliminated items. E.g. a 0,02 increase in alpha as a result from
several eliminated items is not justified.
> 0,80 Elimination of items in order to increase alpha is redundant and the “summated
scale” can directly be calculated.
Figure 14: Instructions for the application of Cronbach's Alpha.
Based on the above instructions the summated scales will be calculated which represent the
independent variables or categories of enabling activities.
Multiple Regression analysis (stepwise)
For BAT Niemeyer it is important to know which enabling activities can be improved in order to create
employee commitment. So, the (mean) scores per questionnaire item and per variable will give them a
good indication of the current situation. But it is probably even more interesting to know in what extent
these categories of enabling activities influence employee commitment. As Hansson & Backlund
(2003) mention individual characteristics, such as attitudes and expectations, are also influenced by
contextual aspects such as corporate culture. This implicates that, although the model is universal, the
level of influence of the different activities on commitment can differ per company. So, by means of a
Multiple Regression analysis it will be determined which independent variables are statistically of
significant influence on employee commitment at BAT Niemeyer.
Multiple Regression analysis is a general statistical technique used to analyze the relationship
between a single dependent variable (commitment) and several independent (enabling activities)
variables. The objective of multiple regression analysis is to use the independent variables whose
values are known to predict the single dependent value. Each independent variable is weighted by the
regression analysis procedure to ensure maximal prediction from the set of independent variables.
The analysis will be done stepwise. The purpose of stepwise regression is to select, from a large
number of predictor variables, a small subset of variables that account for most of the variation in the
dependent variable. In this procedure, the predictor variables enter or are removed from the
regression equation. Initially, there are no predictor variables in the regression equation. Predictor

variables are entered one at a time, only if they meet certain criteria specified in terms of F-ratio ( =
explained variance / unexplained variance). The order in which the variables are included is based on
the contribution to the explained variance. Predictors that no longer meet the specified criterion at
each step are removed (Hair et al, 2005).
To interpret the direction of the relationship between variables, one looks at the signs (plus or minus)
of the regression or B coefficients. If a B coefficient is positive, then the relationship of this variable
with the dependent variable is positive. The general form of the multiple regression equation is as
follows (Malhotra, 1996):
Y= B0 + B 1X1 + B2X2 + B3X3 + ... BkXk + u
So, a linear relation is assumed. B0 is called the intercept (constant), B1 measures the change in Y
with respect to X1, holding other factors fixed, etc.. The u in the model contains other factors affecting
Y. The degree to which the predictors (Xn) are related to the dependent (Y) variable is expressed in
R-square. R-square is the proportion of variance in the dependent variable which can be predicted
from the independent variables based on the given multiple regression model.
The following characteristics and assumptions will be tested in order to apply a proper regression
analysis:
 Normality; The sample data is normally distributed
 Linearity; A linear relation between the independent variables and Commitment is assumed
and will be checked.
 Independent observations; Only one observation (questionnaire) is done.
 Homoscedasticity; We assume that the error in the population we are estimating is distributed
with a mean of 0 and constant (homoscedastic) variance.
 Collinearity; Collinearity occurs when a single independent variable is highly correlated with
another (or a set of) independent variable(s). A collinearity with a “Tolerance-value” < 0,10 and
a “VIF-value” > 10 is considered to be problematic (Hair et al., 1995).
 Significance level 95%; (criteria of stepwise method: Probability-of-F-to-enter <= ,050,
Probability-of-F-to-remove >= ,100).
The analysis will be done using the statistical software program SPSS (v.17.0).

6.3 Survey results
6.3.1 Mean scores of the questionnaire items

In the bar graph below an oversight of the mean results per item are given. The items are shown in
ascending order and the end, in red, the mean of the employee commitment is given.
Figure 15: Mean scores of the questionnaires’ items (ascending)
Item 7 , which is about the “clearness of next steps to be taken in the TPM implementation”, has the
lowest mean score of 2,3. Item 5, “consciousness of the contribution of TPM to the continuation of the
production in Groningen” has the highest mean score of 3,6. The score of 2,8 on item 19 directly
shows us that the “employee commitment” is surely not sufficient under the respondents.
In the next paragraphs more details of the results will be presented for all the 19 questionnaire items.
6.3.2 Descriptive statistics & Cronbach’s Alpha
Support & Leadership
Support and leadership is represented by items 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the questionnaire.
positive
non-positive Cronbach’s
Item Mean* SD (score 4, 5) (score 1, 2, 3) α
1. My executive shows me that working 2,8 1,2 26% 74% 0,775

according to TPM is very important for BAT

Niemeyer. All items
included
2. My executive shows met the benefits of TPM
2,8 1,1 29% 72%
for my daily tasks.
3. My executive provides me sufficient time and

2,8 1,3 29% 72%
means to improve the production process.
4. When I come up with an idea for improvement

3,1 1,0 31% 69%
or remarks my executive takes me serious.
* Scale 1-5
Items 1, 2 and 3 are slightly negative (mean < 3) on a continuous scale. Item 4 is slightly positive. All
the items are valued as underperformed. Considering a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.775 , the calculation of
a summated scale is allowed with all the items included.
Strategic planning
Strategic planning is represented by item 5 of the questionnaire.
positive
5. It is clear how TPM contributes to the

Not
continued existence of the production in 3,6 1,2 60% 40%
applicable
Groningen (“Made in Groningen”).
*Scale 1-5
Item 5 was valued with the highest mean score of 3,6, but it is still not sufficient and needs to be
improved. Because item 5 is the only item in the category Strategic planning Cronbach’s alpha is not
applicable.
Planning the implementation

Planning the implementation is represented by the items 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the questionnaire.
positive
6. It is clear for me in which stage of the TPM

2,6 1,0 17% 83%
implementation we currently are.
0,808
7. It is clear how the next steps of the TPM
2,3 1,0 12% 88%
implementation must be done. All items
included
8. Me and my team members are being
3,1 0,9 32% 69%
involved with the TPM implementation.

9. Within TPM it is clear what is being
3,1 1,1 45% 55%
expected from our team.
*Scale 1-5
Item 7 is the lowest scoring item in the questionnaire. Only 12% has a positive perception of this
statement. Item 6, 7 and 8 are all valued as underperformed. Cronbach’s alpha is 0,808 which is >
0.80 which means that the items show large homogeneity. All the items together will form Strategic
planning and the summated scale can be calculated.
Buying-in & Empowerment

Buying-in & Empowerment is represented by items 10 and 11 of the questionnaire.
positive
10. BAT Niemeyer discusses with us what we 0,200

2,4 0,9 11% 89%
as a team expect from TPM.
No
summated
11. I am allowed to take decisions by myself
3,4 0,9 55% 45% scale
which are of influence on the production.
allowed
*Scale 1-5
If we compare the means of item 10 and 11 the remark can be made that they differ significantly. The
ratios of positive and non-positive respondents show that item 11 is valued far more positive than item
10. The two items have a Cronbach’s alpha of 0,200 which means that there is no homogeneity and
the calculation of a summated scale is not allowed. These two items will be analyzed individually in the
regression analysis. So, Buying-in and Empowerment will form two separate variables.
Measuring & Evaluation

Measuring & evaluation is represented by items 12, 13, and 14 of the questionnaire.
positive
12. The production results of the TPM

2,7 1,0 14% 86%
implementation are being measured.
0,772
13. The measured results of the TPM
implementation are being discussed with 2,6 0,9 18% 82% Items 13 &
our team. 14 are
included
14. The measured results show me the
2,7 0,9 17% 83%
benefits of TPM for my daily tasks.

*Scale 1-5
All the items score slightly negative. The items have a Cronbach’s alpha of 0,712. It will increase to
0,772 if item 12 is deleted, which is significant. So, item 12 will be left out in the calculation of the
summated scale.
Training & Education

Training & education is represented by items 15 and 16 of the questionnaire.
positive
15. I am well trained in the basic principles of

TPM (Kaizen, One-point-lesson, MOEE) and 3,4 1,1 51% 49% 0,679
I know how to use them in my daily tasks.
Both items
16. BAT Niemeyer offers me the possibility to included
3,0 1,2 31% 69%
participate in TPM courses and workshops.
* Scale 1-5
The Cronbach’s alpha of the two items is 0,679. Deleting one of the items to increase alpha is not
possible. The calculation of summated scale is allowed because the items show sufficient
homogeneity (> 0,60).
Communication & Information

Communication and information is represented by items 17 and 18 of the questionnaire.
positive
17. The company provides me with sufficient

2,7 1,0 17% 83%
information about the goals of TPM. 0,894
18. The company provides me with sufficient Both items

information about the consequences of 2,7 1,0 17% 83% included
TPM for my daily tasks.
* Scale 1-5
The respondents are slightly negative about the way BAT Niemeyer provides information related to
TPM. The two items show very high homogeneity with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0,894. The calculation of
a summated scale is directly allowed.

Employee commitment
Employee commitment is the dependent variable which is represented by item 19 of the questionnaire.
positive
19. I believe in the TPM philosophy and I am

2,8 1,1 26% 74% x
motivated to make it successful.
* Scale 1-5
The mean score of 2,8 is slightly negative on a continuous scale. Employee commitment is desired to
have a minimum value of 4 to say the commitment under the employees is sufficient to make TPM
successful. Only 26% of the respondents has a positive perception of the statement. 74% is non-
positive. The spread of the given answers is given in the figure below.
Figure 16: Distribution of the answers given on Item 19: Commitment
Cronbach’s alpha is not applicable because the dependent variable commitment is represented by
only one statement in the questionnaire.
6.3.3 Summary of the questionnaire results
Items
In the table below a summary of the overall perceptions of the items in the questionnaire are given.
Item Overall perception (mode) * Item Overall perception (mode) *

1 Non-positive (3) 10 Negative (2)
2 Negative (2) 11 Positive (4)
3 Non-positive (3) 12 Non-positive (3)
5 Positive (4) 14 Non-positive (3)
6 Non-positive (3) 15 Positive (4)
7 Negative (2) 16 Non-positive (3)
9 Positive (4) 18 Non-positive (3)

* used categorization for the overall perception:
Mode 1, 2: negative perception (also non-positive)
Mode 3: non-positive perception
Mode 4, 5: positive perception
If we consider the totals of the perceptions, it can be noticed that only 4 of the 18 items were valued as
positive. 11 items were valued as neutral or non-positive and 3 items were valued as negative. So, 14
out if the 18 items , which is almost 78%, has been valued by the employees of BAT Niemeyer as non-
positive. The employee commitment, which is assumed to have a causal relation with the factors
represented by these items, also has a overall non-positive perception (mode 3, mean score 2,8).
Independent Variables (summated scales)
The summated scales of the items per category of enabling activities are calculated according to the
instructions related to Cronbach’s alpha. The mean score per independent variable and the definitions
of the summated scales as they will be used in SPSS are given in the table (ascending).
Definition
Category of enabling activities Mean score Independent
variable (X)
Buying-in 2,4 BuyingIn
Measuring & Evaluation 2,7 MeasurEva
Communication & Information 2,7 CommInfo
Planning the Implementation 2,8 PlannImp
Support & Leadership 2,9 SuppLeader
Training & Education 3,2 TrainEdu

Empowerment 3,4 Empower
Strategic Planning 3,6 StrPlann
Figure 17: Mean score per variable at BAT Niemeyer (categories of “enabling activities”)
The independent variable Buying-in turns out to be the lowest valued with a mean score of 2,4.
Strategic Planning is the highest valued variable with a means core of 3,6. Considering a minimum
mean score of 4 to be desired for BAT Niemeyer, none of the variables scores sufficient.
6.4 Multiple Regression analysis

In this paragraph the statistically significant independent variables will be determined by means of a
multiple regression analysis. In the context of the investigation this statistical significant coefficients
have to be translated to managerial significant terms. In order to increase the employee commitment
at BAT Niemeyer the relative impact and importance of the independent variables on commitment is
most important.
The SPSS output of the correlation analysis and the regression analysis (stepwise) is given below.
Correlations
Commitment SuppLeader StrPlann PlannImp BuyingIn Empower MeasurEva TrainEdu CommInfo
Commitment Pearson ** * ** ** ** ** **
1,000 ,644 ,391 ,660 ,531 ,495 ,717 ,325 ,710
Correlation
Sig. (2-
,000 ,020 ,000 ,001 ,003 ,000 ,056 ,000
tailed)
N 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35
SuppLeader Pearson ** ** ** ** **
,644 1,000 ,089 ,743 ,525 ,223 ,629 ,252 ,560
Correlation
Sig. (2-
,000 ,612 ,000 ,001 ,197 ,000 ,144 ,000
tailed)
N 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35
StrPlann Pearson * * *
,391 ,089 1,000 ,095 ,198 ,415 ,237 ,292 ,336
Correlation
Sig. (2-
,020 ,612 ,588 ,254 ,013 ,171 ,089 ,049
tailed)
N 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35
PlannImp Pearson ** ** ** ** **
,660 ,743 ,095 1,000 ,528 ,301 ,571 ,250 ,631
Correlation
Sig. (2-
,000 ,000 ,588 ,001 ,079 ,000 ,147 ,000
tailed)
N 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35

BuyingIn Pearson ** ** ** ** **
,531 ,525 ,198 ,528 1,000 ,184 ,676 ,316 ,460
Correlation
Sig. (2-
,001 ,001 ,254 ,001 ,290 ,000 ,065 ,005
tailed)
N 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35
Empower Pearson ** * *
,495 ,223 ,415 ,301 ,184 1,000 ,174 ,246 ,346
Correlation
Sig. (2-
,003 ,197 ,013 ,079 ,290 ,318 ,154 ,042
tailed)
N 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35
MeasurEva Pearson ** ** ** ** **
,717 ,629 ,237 ,571 ,676 ,174 1,000 ,313 ,547
Correlation
Sig. (2-
,000 ,000 ,171 ,000 ,000 ,318 ,067 ,001
tailed)
N 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35
TrainEdu Pearson **
,325 ,252 ,292 ,250 ,316 ,246 ,313 1,000 ,507
Correlation
Sig. (2-
,056 ,144 ,089 ,147 ,065 ,154 ,067 ,002
tailed)
N 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35
CommInfo Pearson ** ** * ** ** * ** **
,710 ,560 ,336 ,631 ,460 ,346 ,547 ,507 1,000
Correlation
Sig. (2-
,000 ,000 ,049 ,000 ,005 ,042 ,001 ,002
tailed)
N 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-
tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
According to the above correlation matrix all the independent variables, except “TrainEdu”, have a
significant positive relation with the dependent variable commitment. A correlation of +1 means that
there is a perfect positive linear relationship between variables. It is a positive relationship because
high scores on one variable are associated with high scores on the other variable. This means, for
example, if “MeasurEva” scores high “Commitment” will also be high and vice versa. This correlation
only considers the two variables once at a time so the other variables are then left out of
consideration. Furthermore, it does not imply causality. In order to expose significant causal relations
the regression analysis has to be applied.
Model Summary
Change Statistics
Adjusted R Std. Error of R Square
Model R R Square Square the Estimate Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
a
1 ,717 ,514 ,499 ,814 ,514 34,920 1 33 ,000

b
2 ,811 ,658 ,637 ,693 ,144 13,521 1 32 ,001
c
3 ,856 ,733 ,707 ,622 ,075 8,673 1 31 ,006
a. Predictors: (Constant), MeasurEva
b. Predictors: (Constant), MeasurEva, CommInfo
c. Predictors: (Constant), MeasurEva, CommInfo, Empower
The “Model Summary” of the stepwise regression analysis shows the automatically selected significant
variables, Measuring & Evaluation, Communication & Information and Empowerment based on a
significance level of 95% (p ≤ 0,05). The R-square of 0,733 (73,3%) is the proportion of variance in the
dependent variable (Commitment) which can be explained by the independent variables. This is an
overall measure of the strength of association and does not reflect the extent to which any particular
independent variable (X) is associated with the dependent variable (Y). The Adjusted R-square gives a
more realistic result, because it is adjusted for the number of independent variables and the sample
size. So, in our case (8 predictors, n=35) 70,7% of the variance in Y(Commitment) can be explained
by the three independent variables Measuring & Evaluation, Communication & Information and
Empowerment, which reveals quite a good fit of the model. The F value for the "Change Statistics"
shows the significance level associated with adding the variable for that step. All the three steps are
significant and, logically, if a step was not significant, it would not have been modeled.
d
Excluded Variables
Collinearity Statistics
Partial Minimum
Model Beta In t Sig. Correlation Tolerance VIF Tolerance
a
1 BuyingIn ,086 ,519 ,608 ,091 ,544 1,840 ,544
Empower ,382
a
3,623 ,001 ,539 ,970 1,031 ,970
SuppLeader ,320
a
2,160 ,038 ,357 ,604 1,656 ,604
PlannImp ,372
a
2,756 ,010 ,438 ,673 1,485 ,673
TrainEdu a
,112 ,875 ,388 ,153 ,902 1,108 ,902
CommInfo a
,454 3,677 ,001 ,545 ,701 1,426 ,701
StrPlann a
,234 1,952 ,060 ,326 ,944 1,059 ,944
b
2 BuyingIn ,011 ,076 ,940 ,014 ,532 1,880 ,473
Empower b
,291 2,945 ,006 ,468 ,880 1,137 ,636
SuppLeader b
,177 1,269 ,214 ,222 ,537 1,861 ,537
PlannImp b
,201 1,437 ,161 ,250 ,529 1,890 ,529
TrainEdu b
-,069 -,572 ,572 -,102 ,741 1,350 ,576

b
StrPlann ,144 1,327 ,194 ,232 ,883 1,132 ,656
c
3 BuyingIn -,008 -,060 ,953 -,011 ,531 1,885 ,472
SuppLeader c
,158 1,256 ,219 ,223 ,536 1,866 ,536
PlannImp c
,155 1,216 ,233 ,217 ,520 1,921 ,520
TrainEdu c
-,098 -,905 ,372 -,163 ,735 1,360 ,541
c
StrPlann ,051 ,480 ,635 ,087 ,781 1,281 ,621
a. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), MeasurEva
b. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), MeasurEva, CommInfo
c. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), MeasurEva, CommInfo, Empower
d. Dependent Variable: Commitment
In the “Excluded Variables’ table above the significance levels of the variables during the steps are
shown. After the third step there are no significant (“Sig.”< 0,05) variables left, so no more variables
can be added to the model.
d
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression a
23,121 1 23,121 34,920 ,000
Residual 21,850 33 ,662

Total 44,971 34
2 Regression 29,611 2 14,806 30,845 ,000
b
Residual 15,360 32 ,480

Total 44,971 34
3 Regression 32,969 3 10,990 28,385 ,000
c
Residual 12,002 31 ,387

Total 44,971 34
a. Predictors: (Constant), MeasurEva
b. Predictors: (Constant), MeasurEva, CommInfo
c. Predictors: (Constant), MeasurEva, CommInfo, Empower
d. Dependent Variable: Commitment
The “ANOVA” (Analysis of Variances) tests whether the model is significantly better at predicting the
outcome than using the average as a ‘best guess’. The output table above tests the overall
significance of the model (that is, of the regression equation), for all the steps. The F value or F-ratio of
the model represents the ratio in improvement in prediction that results from fitting the model

(“Regression”) relative to the inaccuracy that still exists (“Residual”). The F-ratio of 28,385 means that,
considering our model based on the sample used for estimation, we can explain about 28 times more
variation than when using the average. Considering the Sig. of 0,000 it is not likely to happen by
chance (less than 0,1% of the time). We can interpret these results as meaning that the final model,
model 3, significantly improves our ability to predict the outcome variable, Commitment.
Now the significance of the model is confirmed we need the Coefficients” table in order to create the
regression equation of the model.
a
Coefficients
Unstandardized Standardized Collinearity
Coefficients Coefficients Correlations Statistics
Zero-
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. order Partial Part Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) ,258 ,456 ,566 ,576
MeasurEva ,962 ,163 ,717 5,909 ,000 ,717 ,717 ,717 1,000 1,000
2 (Constant) -,352 ,422 -,833 ,411
MeasurEva ,629 ,166 ,469 3,802 ,001 ,717 ,558 ,393 ,701 1,426
CommInfo ,549 ,149 ,454 3,677 ,001 ,710 ,545 ,380 ,701 1,426
3 (Constant) -1,229 ,482 -2,548 ,016
MeasurEva ,638 ,149 ,475 4,290 ,000 ,717 ,610 ,398 ,701 1,427
CommInfo ,423 ,141 ,349 3,003 ,005 ,710 ,475 ,279 ,636 1,572
Empower ,356 ,121 ,291 2,945 ,006 ,495 ,468 ,273 ,880 1,137
a. Dependent Variable: Commitment
It is allowed to use the “Unstandardized B Coefficients” instead of the “Standardized Beta

Coefficients”, because the variables are measured on equal and comparable scales (Hair et al, 1995).
The t-test tests the significance of each b coefficient, which are all < 0,05. It is possible to have a
regression model which is significant overall by the F test (“ANOVA”) , but where a particular
coefficient is not significant. The relation between the significant independent variables and the
dependent variable, commitment (Y) can now be formulated:
Y (Commitment) = -1,229 + 0,638 (MeasurEva) + 0,423 (CommInfo) + 0,356 (Empower)
In the context of the investigation the predictive function of the equation is less relevant than the
relative impact of the independent variables. So, based on the survey, Measuring & Evaluation turns
out to have the biggest influence on employee commitment. It has about 51% more influence on
commitment than Communication & Information and about 79% more influence than the

Empowerment variable. Communication & Information has 16% more influence on Commitment than
Empowerment.
Although, Hansson and Backlund (2003) distinguish different categories of enabling activities to create
employee commitment, the survey exposes that only three of the eight categories are of significant
influence. One could say that it is company dependent and that the context determines the level
influence per category. This could be worth investigating but lies beyond the scope of this
investigation.
Another explanation for the result of the regression analysis must be considered. If we look at the
different categories in their practical application, it can be noticed that it is nearly impossible to carry
out the different activities completely separated. The relatively big part of the activities are highly
intertwined. For example, during Monitoring & Evaluation, were results are being measured and
evaluated, aspects of Support & Leadership and Communication & Information play an important role.
When employees are getting feedback on the achieved results, information is given and the executive
simultaneously explains, for example, how the results contribute benefit to the operators’ daily tasks.
The recommendations will be focused on the three significant variables, but it will become clear that
the several activities form the remaining categories have a stake in it.
6.5 Conclusions
In this chapter we wanted to determine existing causes for the assumed lack of cultural awareness,
which was indicated by the preliminary investigation. In the theoretical framework it was stated that
’cultural awareness’ is not just the same as ‘awareness of culture’, but that the ‘motivation’ aspect
forms a big part of it. That is why commitment is chosen as the covering term, which is more
commonly used.
First of all the level of commitment is measured by means of the survey in order to confirm the
indication from the preliminary investigation. With a mean score of 2,8 (1-5 scale) the Commitment of
the employees at BAT Niemeyer towards TPM is insufficient.
According to the theory of Hansson & Backlund (2003) the enabling activities (independent variables)
influence intangible factors and affect commitment during the implementation of TPM. Causes of this
existing lack of employee commitment have to be searched in the way the enabling activities are
performed.
If we look at the results of the survey on item level 78% was valued as non-positive (mode< 4). The
mean scores lay between 2,3 and 3,6 (scale 1-5) so they all scored insufficient. The mean scores of
the variables lay between 2,4 and 3,6 and so they all underperform.

The Measuring & Evaluation, Communication & Information and Empowerment activities turned out to
be statistically of significant influence on the employee commitment at BAT Niemeyer. With a 95%
reliability it can be stated that they determine 70,7% of the variance in Commitment. Moreover, with
their low mean scores of respectively 2,7 , 2,7 and 3,4 they can be assigned as the main causes of the
low level of commitment on the shop floor.
Necessarily, the way in which the ‘enabling activities’ are carried out in the current situation has to be
improved in order to realize employee commitment. A detailed description of the actions for
improvement will be given in chapter 8.
7 Diagnosis within the ‘Elimination of Losses’

principle
In this chapter the causes of a low score within the ‘elimination of losses’ principle will be exposed.
The causes will be searched in terms of shortcomings in the ‘elimination of losses’ process, described
earlier.
7.1 Selection of a model machine

As mentioned before a critical step in the early stage of TPM implementation is the selection of a
model machine. BAT Niemeyer never selected a model machine during the implementation phase. By
selecting a model machine it possible to focus your sources firstly on one machine, instead of using a
‘big bang’ strategy. To limit the uncertainty and enhance the chances of success in the initial stage,
small scale pilot projects should be conducted where quick and visible benefits can be expected.
Admirable results in the first six months can convince management and the workforce that significant
improvements in machine uptime can be achieved. Till now, BAT Niemeyer did not achieve convincing
results in machine up time, which harms the motivation and trust of the employees related to TPM. So,
it will have a positive impact on creating employee commitment at BAT Niemeyer when concrete
results can be shown to personnel.
However, in a further stage of the TPM implementation a model machine is still very useful.
Improvements and lessons within TPM can be extended to the remaining machines and are much
faster as the model machine is acting as a guideline for the replication. Especially in the case of BAT
Niemeyer, where most of the machines show high similarity, replication of improvements can be done
very quickly.

7.2 OEE measurement & target setting
Several years ago BAT Niemeyer implemented a so called OEE-toolkit. The toolkit is a piece of
software which is able to calculate the OEE of the production machines according to the calculation
formula given in chapter 5.2. After several observations and conversations on the work floor it became
clear that there were possibilities for improvement related to the toolkit. Shop floor workers clearly
doubted the reliability of the OEE. Considering the fact that the OEE is the most important indicator for
the success of the TPM implementation and has to drive improvement activities, it was worth doing
some further investigation.
To calculate the OEE break-downs, stops, production volumes, defects, etc. of the individual
production machines have to be registered. At BAT Niemeyer the OEE-toolkit receives this data from
two different input channels (see figure below).
Production forms
Promis/ Business
Objects (ERP)
Automated
Manual input OEE-Toolkit
input
OEE-output
Figure 18: Data collection stream for the OEE calculation at BAT Niemeyer
The first data source for the OEE-calculation is are the ERP software systems called Promis and
Business Objects. The systems are able to accurately register data like machine stops, idleness,
machine speed, production volumes, etc. The ERP systems can directly be connected to the toolkit.
The second data source is formed by the production forms (see Appendix 3). This production form is
being used by every operator, every shift for every batch. Besides the registration of the production
volumes and controlling activities the backside of the form is meant to be used for the registration of
machine idleness, breakdowns and short stops. Operators are able to notify more detailed information
about the cause of a certain stop in contrast to the ERP’s which are very accurate but limited to a
certain aggregation level.

The total registered time by the operator on the production form has to align with the length of his shift.
The production forms are manually being processed into the OEE-toolkit.
Problems
The two data sources both entail several problems. The following problems are related to Promis and
Business Objects:
 The ERP’s are limited to a certain aggregation level. So, some causes of stops or breakdowns
cannot be registered. E.g. They can register that the cause of a certain stop is located in a
certain part of the machine but do not know what the exact cause is.
 Because of the limited aggregation level the employees do not exactly know what information
is reliable and useful for the toolkit.
 Most of the employees who work with the OEE toolkit do not exactly know which information is
interfaced with the toolkit.
 Because of the diversity of breakdown registrations and categories on different aggregation

levels the information has to be translated which results in information losses.
 The eventual output of the OEE is being adapted arbitrary by several employees. So, the
result is affected by differences in interpretations of the registered numbers.
Problems related to the production forms:
 Registration of the stops/breakdowns is very labor intensive. Both, for the operators and for
the employees working with the toolkit.
 Registration of the stops/breakdowns is very inaccurate because the operators make an

estimation at the end of their shift to justify the operating time in their shift.
 It is impossible for the operators to accurately fill in the form because they are too busy with
controlling the machine.
In the current situation the OEE is mainly used and seen as an overall indicator of the performance.
The exposed problems prove that the calculation of the OEE is unreliable and labor intensive. It
confirms the preceding suspicions of the employees. It is crucial that the measurement of the OEE is
done in a proper way because the results determine future actions of improvement. The current OEE
output which lacks to provide the needed information cannot form this basis for improvement. Another
important result of the unreliable measurement of the OEE is the fact that employees do not trust the

OEE measure. Resulting in employees which are not willing to work to with it and employees which
are not motivated to improve it.
Although, the data collection problem is quite complex it is essential in TPM to arrange a proper OEE
measurement. Avoiding the problem by directly going towards operator maintenance and small group
activities without investigating the configuration of losses is dangerous. It might lead to operator
maintenance and small group activities without having effects on the OEE.
Target setting
As mentioned before, in a TPM system, all machines need to have a clear and quantifiable target no
matter whether it is a model machine or a follower machine. In the current situation the main goal for
the teams is to produce the planned amount of products. At least, that is how the floor workers
perceive it. One of the causes of having the problems to keep up with the production planning is the
understaffing in the teams as a result of the recent reorganization. No concrete short- and long-term
goals in terms of an OEE increase per machine are set for the teams. The results of the OEE output
are seldom being evaluated with the team members on team level. The way they receive feedback is
by means of printed outputs of the OEE toolkit, which are being pinned down weekly at a whiteboard
in the factory. The operators seldom analyze this output and find it hard to interpret the results. Some
of the employees do not even know how the different parameters of the OEE are influenced. The
operators are not motivated to use the OEE output as a basis for small improvement actions during
their daily tasks. Timely, relevant and accurate goals and feedback is needed to trigger the shop floor
workers to use the OEE as a basis for small improvement activities.
The preceding aligns with the low scores in the results of the questionnaire for the Measuring &
Evaluation activities.
7.3 Determination of the causes of losses & creating improvements

Focused Improvement team
In most TPM organizations a cross-functional team (engineering, maintenance, production and

management), is normally occupied with the elimination of big structural losses and drives the
improvements actions in the factory. By means of different TPM tools, like cause analysis methods, in
combination with their knowledge the team is able to expose the causes of structural losses and come
up with solutions. The cross-functionality of the team links the knowledge of the different departments
and makes it innovative and able to come up with ideas for improvement. It is in charge of leading the
improvement plans and is responsible for establishing lines of action, priorities and tracking activities.
At BAT Niemeyer there is no official dedicated FI-team with members from different departments with
formal meetings in which structured plans for improvement projects are made, goals are set and

results are evaluated. Of course, improvement projects are carried but this is more on a reactive base
than a pro-active base and not that centralized. When the shop floor walks into large and complex
problems the OTS and/or FTS is usually occupied with the problem. Although they are technically
sophisticated they are not cross-functional. This can result in non-optimal use of the knowledge and
experience which is present within the organization, for example, under operators. Engagement of
operators in such a way is also important to create commitment on the shop floor.
Production Technicians
In the current situation at BAT Niemeyer the PT’s are expected to print out the OEE output for their
team and try to eliminate the main losses. In this process no analysis methods (e.g. why, why, why,
because) are used. The analysis documents are available in the database but they are seldom being
used. Most of the PT’s and operators do not trust the outcomes of the OEE measurement, because
they are aware of the way the OEE is being composed. Due to a lack of manpower and the pressure
of workload the PT’s sometimes can hardly find time to analyze the losses in their OEE. During their
daily tasks they are mainly occupied with solving ad-hoc problems to keep the machine running.
Operators
In a continuous improvement culture all the employees in the organization are expected to contribute
to improvements. In a TPM organization operators are occupied with small maintenance activities but
they also have to play an important role in the improvement process. Operators are the ones spending
most of the time at the machines so they have the best practical knowledge and ‘feel’ the machine.
Operators can form an important information and for an improvement team. Besides, they can come
up with their own ideas for improvement based on their experience and the problems they encounter
in their daily tasks.
During observations and conversations on the shop floor several things became clear. The operators
in mini-factory 1 are during their shift mainly occupied with keeping up with the production schedule.
They are constantly busy with solving little problems, like machine breakdowns, and inserting
pouches. So, there is barely time for additional improvement actions. The motivation of the operators
to improve the production process already turned out to be low in the survey. In general operators do
not feel motivated and do not have the time to investigate the causes of breakdowns. Some operators
actually know the root causes, but they do not feel the necessity to undertake action like filling in a
Kaizen or one-point-lesson document. These ,and other TPM documents, are available in the
database but they are not being used anymore. Before the reorganization they were. Mere over,
senior management tolerates such poor behavior, so in that way the shop floor workers are not
triggered to use the documents. They do not feel the urgency of using the documents and do not think
it is expected from them by their executives.

7.4 Embedding of improvements in standards
The standardization of operation processes is another essential aspect in the process of elimination of
losses. Structural losses have a frequent existence and their causes are locked in the organization’s
structure which is made up out of standards. By defining work processes in SOP’s a certain situation
can be fixed. Which means that a certain level of equipment-efficiency can be fixed. Then, by using
creativity and innovation ability these standards can be improved.
Like most other organizations BAT Niemeyer works with instructions and protocols that are defined to
structure the production process to a certain level. E.g. different maintenance checklists are present to
steer the shop floor workers in their maintenance activities and there is a tight protocol to guard the
quality (size, weight, labels, etc.) of the finished products. However, the usage of SOP’s can be
improved in order to optimize processes and eliminate existing losses. Standard activities which are
repeated several times a day are carried out in various ways and so often not carried out in an efficient
way. The different teams within mini-factory 1 all have their own work habits and communications.
They even differ per shift. Next, an illustration will be given to demonstrate how some shortcomings in
working with SOP’s can be improved and how they could benefit to the results at BAT Niemeyer.
Standard operating procedures at BAT Niemeyer: An illustration from the shop floor
During several observations on the shop floor it turned out that for a relatively labor intensive and time
consuming activity like a so called ‘tobacco change’ no fixed detailed SOP is being used. A global
description of this operating procedure is present (although it took quite a while to show it) but in
practice no optimized detailed standard procedure for the tobacco change is being applied by the
different teams.
The ‘tobacco change’ is a time consuming activity. During the change the machine is idle and different
actions are being carried out; the machine has to be cleaned with a vacuum cleaner, some
administration is being done, some material is being brought away, new machine settings are being
set, etc. Because the machine is idle during these activities the change has a big impact on the
availability of the machine and so on the OEE.
Several observations of tobacco changes have been done within different teams and it became clear
that there was quite a difference in the way they were carried out. Some teams used a very efficient
method with the help of two other operators, while in other teams the activity was carried out by only
one operator. The order in which the different activities were done also differed. Remarkable and
interesting is the fact that the duration of the changes fluctuated between 28 and 96 minutes. That is
quite a lot considering the fact that the activity sometimes has to be done several times a day.
According to the production planning a tobacco change is scheduled on 45 minutes.

The development of an optimized standard procedure for a tobacco change could result in a
significant increase in the availability of the machines. Moreover, it will stabilize the production
process, because the fluctuation of the needed time will decrease. This will make it easier to make a
tight production planning and increase productivity. The SOP’s or work instructions that are present in
the database are seldom revised and improved.
The preceding illustration is just an example, but it confirms that the use of SOP’s can be improved
which will could be of great influence on the OEE. It also confirms the lack of the presence of an
continuous improvement culture. Someone (e.g. an FI-team) should audit the present SOP’s once per
period and improve it when necessary. The tobacco change could have been optimized (e.g. by the
use of a setup optimization method like SMED) on a model machine and rolled out over the factory.
7.5 Conclusions
In this chapter we exposed existing causes for the relatively low score on the ‘elimination of losses’
principle at BAT Niemeyer in the preliminary investigation. The low score on the ‘elimination of losses’
principle is assumed to be caused by a lacking elimination of losses process. The process is defined in
chapter 5.2.
The first step in the process of elimination of losses is the selection of a model machine. There is no
such machine at BAT Niemeyer. By focusing your resources quick and visible benefits can be made in
the first period of the TPM implementation which creates commitment and awareness towards TPM.
BAT Niemeyer used a kind of ‘big bang’ strategy in which it is difficult to achieve quick results and
creates a negative association with TPM. After the implementation the model machine can act as a
guideline for the replication of improvements over the factory. This is especially useful at BAT
Niemeyer because the machines and the related processes show high similarity.
The next step in the elimination of losses process is the OEE measurement. The exposed problems
prove that the calculation of the OEE at BAT Niemeyer is unreliable and labor intensive. It is crucial
that the measurement of the OEE is done in a proper way because the results determine future
actions of improvement. Because of bad data collection the current OEE output lacks to provide the
needed information cannot form the basis for improvement. Another important result of the unreliable
measurement of the OEE is the fact that employees do not trust the OEE measure. This has a
negative effect on the employee’s commitment to improve it by small group activities.
The preceding findings align with the relatively low scores for the Measuring & Evaluation activities in
the survey.
In the current situation, on team level, no clear and quantifiable goals are set in terms of an OEE
increase. Due to a lack of covering manpower and the pressure of workload shop floor workers are

mainly focused on keeping up with the production planning. Timely, relevant and accurate goals and
feedback is needed to trigger the shop floor workers to use the OEE as a basis for small actions of
improvement.
At BAT Niemeyer there is no dedicated cross-functional FI-team that is occupied with the elimination
of big structural losses of the OEE. A FI-team is in charge of leading the improvement plans and is
responsible for establishing lines of action, priorities and tracking activities. The OTS and FTS
department are mainly occupied with complex improvement projects. They are not cross-functional
which can result in loss of knowledge. E.g. operators form a useful source of information when they
are engaged in such projects.
A remark must be made that some of the indicated problems are a result of the recent reorganization.
Because of the temporary lack of manpower and the high workload the pressure on the production is
quit high, so less time can be spent on e.g. improvement activities.
8 Recommendations
In this chapter recommendations for achieving a structural improved implementation of the principles
‘cultural awareness’ and ‘elimination of losses’ will be done. The recommendations are based on the
theoretical framework, chapter 5, and the exposed causes discussed in chapter 6 and 7.
8.1 Improvement of the ‘cultural awareness’

It the theoretical framework several categories of enabling activities were identified in order to create
employee commitment (defined as the covering term for the intangible factors like awareness,
understanding, ownership and motivation). The survey exposed that the way in which these activities
are carried out at BAT Niemeyer is insufficient and has to be improved. Monitoring & Evaluation,
Communication & Information and Empowerment turned out to be of significant influence on employee
commitment.
8.1.1 Measuring & Evaluation

In order to increase the employee commitment on the short term the management of BAT Niemeyer
has to set its first priorities on the improvement of their Monitoring & Evaluation activities. This
category turned out to have the biggest influence on employee commitment at BAT Niemeyer and in
the current situation the activities are carried out in an insufficient way.
First, before getting started with the improvement of these activities the pressure of the workload
needs to be taken down and sufficient manpower has to be present. You cannot expect from

personnel to be motivated to carry out TPM activities when they can hardly keep up with the
production planning.
The OEE is the far most important tool to measure and monitor results and progress within TPM. The
accuracy and the level of useful information it provides need to be improved. A detailed instruction of
this will be given in chapter 8.2.2. Unreliable monitoring of the OEE will result in unmotivated shop
floor workers. They will not be motivated to improve results when the measurement of the results is
not accurate.
The first step in the improvement of the Monitoring & Evaluation activities is the start-up of formal goal
setting and feedback meetings. Formal meetings need to be planned (e.g. once in two weeks with the
area manager) were concrete short-term goals are set and results are evaluated per team. In the
meetings the executive (area manager or TPM manager) clearly has to explain the reasons and the
importance of the meetings in order to create understanding (this clearly confirms that the
Communication & Information and Support & Leadership activities are intertwined with the Monitoring
& Evaluation activities).
Arranging feedback and goal setting meetings on a strictly and regular base establishes a sense of
importance under the employees, which is not present at the moment. By doing this, the area manager
(middle management) forms an important means to propagate management commitment to the shop
floor. After a while employees will get used to the setting, achievement and evaluation of goals and the
process will be embedded in the organization structure.
Goals can be set in several ways. Once the OEE is improved quantified objectives can be set in terms
of an OEE increase per machine or losses selected for elimination. But other clear and quantifiable
objectives in terms of mean units between assists (MUBA), number of Kaizens, one-point-lessons,
improvement, suggestions or training hours for skill level enhancement are also appropriate. It is
important that tools are simple and can be used for quick and clear feedback. E.g. displaying the
MUBA on the screen of the machines will create more motivation under employees to keep the
machine running than printing out the results at the end of the week. Clear and quantifiable feedback
on team level will let employees experience progress which motivates them.
Once the operators have tackled numerous amounts of equipment defects and breakdowns, they can
taste the satisfaction of successful improvement. This development of a “Can-Do” attitude really
motivates operators to initiate more small improvement activities. A positive attitude, ownership and
concern are developed.
When the goals are set in agreement with the team members themselves they will feel involved and
responsible for it. Recognition and acceptation of individual responsibility (Empowerment) for
equipment will rise. Furthermore, continuous visualization of results during the process is important.

White boards in the factory must provide clear and up-to-date information. In the current situation shop
floor workers seldom look at it, because the given information is often not relevant.
For the long-term, the monitoring and evaluation of goals in terms of TPM implementation steps have
to be done (Planning the implementation). It has to be clear for middle management and shop floor
workers what the actual status of the implementation is and which steps have to be taken. So,
employees will have more understanding of how their daily tasks contribute to the whole and how it fits
within the TPM philosophy. E.g. meetings and items on the whiteboards and flat screens are possible
means to inform the employees about the current status of the implementation plan.
8.1.2 Communication & Information

Communication & Information is highly intertwined with the other enabling activities. It forms an
important part in practically all of the other categories. So , it forms a strong means to create employee
commitment.
According to the survey, shop floor workers do not receive sufficient information about the exact goals
and guidelines of TPM and how TPM influences their daily tasks. In order to realize employee
commitment under the shop floor workers more understanding has to be created. The average
education level of the production is not so high, and for some of them it is hard see the actual meaning
of TPM and how to perform well in the implementation. E.g. some misunderstandings and lack of
knowledge about TPM still exists on the shop floor. Some production workers have the feeling that
TPM is trying to make production workers to do more work. So, the management has to accentuate
the benefits of TPM for their daily tasks and let them understand the whole concept. Furthermore,
TPM is often seen as some sort of isolated project which is done parallel to ‘normal’ production instead
of a new culture.
A refreshing introductory presentation (training) for the production people can be given, or at least for
the new employees which are contracted recently. It is time to make clear that now the reorganization
has been done the focus will be on TPM again. Misunderstandings have to be taken away now the
fear for losing their jobs is overcome.
An open atmosphere and the involvement of BAT Niemeyer’s communications department will form
critical success factors. Furthermore, informal meetings of top and middle management and union
representatives to discuss TPM can be useful in addition to the formal communication. By open and
meaningful communication about aims and goals, and about the TPM concept and how it will affect
employees personally, understanding and involvement will be increased.

8.1.3 Empowerment
After the reorganization more responsibility has moved from middle management to the teams on the
shop floor. The survey confirmed this so the shop floor workers are aware of it. That is a positive fact
which will result in involvement, job satisfaction and the feeling of ownership.
In general the shop floor workers react positive on the fact that they are allowed to take more
decisions which are of influence on the production process. They have the feeling that their
contribution is important for BAT Niemeyer and that they can make a difference. The only thing is that
their contributions are mainly focused on keeping up with the production planning because of the
pressure of workload mentioned earlier. At the moment they do not feel the responsibility of, for
example, initiating improvement actions by filling in Kaizens.
Once the pressure of workload has been taken down and the time and means are available, BAT
Niemeyer can expect responsibility related to TPM actions from the teams. Thereby is it important that
the teams will set their own goals and targets (see recommendations Monitoring & Evaluation) in
agreement with middle management (area manager) in order to create ownership and involvement.
Subsequently, because they have the responsibility in achieving the goals, successes have to be
rewarded and bad behavior must not be tolerated by management.
8.2 Improvement of the ‘elimination of losses’ process
8.2.1 Selection of a model machine

The selection of a model machine can be useful for BAT Niemeyer. The implementation of TPM by
means of big bang strategy far more difficult than starting with only one machine. BAT Niemeyer will
be able to focus resources on one machine and the lessons learned can rolled out over the factory.
The fact that the machines in the factory show high similarity forms a big advantage in this process.
The example of the ‘tobacco change’ optimization, mentioned in chapter 8.4, illustrates how useful a
model machine can be. Besides the improvement of standard operating procedures the model
machine will be very useful to test machine adaptations.
When using a model machine where team members will be selected to contribute to certain
improvement actions some aspects need to be taken into account. Non selected TPM-members can
have the feeling that the workload increases during the implementation and that they are isolated from
TPM. It is important to involve the other shop floor workers with the TPM activities by means of clear
and open communication and information so that they understand the meaning of it and know that
they can benefit from it themselves.

8.2.2 OEE measurement & target setting
In chapter 7.2 it became clear that the calculation of the OEE at BAT Niemeyer is unreliable, labor
intensive and does not satisfy the information need. Several steps of improvement need to be taken in
order to make the OEE useful as a basis for improvement actions.
Initially, the content and the form of the needed data, has to be determined. Information related to
losses has to be on such an aggregation level that is useful for the shop floor workers. Too detailed
data may result in unmotivated personnel and reaction against measurement. Data must be collected
and owned- and reviewed daily and weekly.
Based on the generated information they have to able to investigate and eliminate losses. The
possibilities of the ERP’s have to be investigated. It would ideal if the ERP’s aggregation level of data
registering could be extended to a lower level. In the current situation the operators are expected to
measure the losses on a low aggregation level during production, which is inaccurate and labor
intensive. Besides, it frustrates shop floor workers. The production form needs to be revised. The form
can only contain information which can be registered accurately by the operators during their shift.
Writing down inaccurate information is just a waste of resources.
Furthermore, ambiguities related to the interface connection between the ERP’s and the OEE-toolkit
have to be solved. Losses clearly have to be categorized (according to the Six Big Losses, chapter
5.2) and data has to be processed according to a fixed procedure and not in an arbitrary manner.
Without a constant and fixed procedure the output is unreliable and not useful.
The data collection problem is not uncommon in TPM organizations. The advantage at BAT Niemeyer
(mini-factory 1) is the fact that the machines show high similarity. Investigation and tests can be done
on one (model) machine and then improvements can be rolled out over the other machines.
If the preceding improvements can hardly be realized on the short-term, the measurement of the
MUBA (mean units between assist) forms a good, temporary alternative. In the control screen of the
machine the MUBA (total number of units produced / number of stoppages) can easily be displayed. It
gives simple and quick feedback and shows progress.
Finally, it is essential that the elimination process which is formed around the measurement (see
chapter 8.1.1), is designed in such a way that the OEE- measurement leads to structural improvement
actions. If the OEE-measures are pure seen as a management tool, the shop floor workers do not buy
in.
Target setting
The ‘target setting’ recommendations are already discussed in the Monitoring & Evaluation paragraph.
The setting of targets forms an essential element in the Monitoring & Evaluation process.

8.2.3 Determination of the causes of losses & creating improvements
In order to boost the improvement culture at BAT Niemeyer the formation of formal cross-functional FI-
team could be very useful. A central team with members from production, maintenance (PT’s) and
engineering (OTS / FTS) which is in charge of leading the improvement plans and is responsible for
establishing lines of action, priorities and tracking activities related to the TPM master plan. Is has to
be the core around which the continuous improvement plan revolves. The production-, quality- or TPM
manager coordinates or leads the group. The members have to be well trained in TPM principles and
have a relatively high educational level. It is preferred that they are relative young of age so that they
are more eager to learn and accept change.
The team has to aim for maximum participation of all area employees. So, the team can receive
contributions (ideas, suggestions, etc.) from anyone in the area, even though they do not belong to the
team. In this way the local knowledge from the teams can be centralized, used and spread over other
areas. In the current situation knowledge, ideas, etc., often stays within the boundaries of the team
while it is useful for other teams because they have nearly identical machines and processes.
While the FI-team is occupied with the more complex problems and guarding the continuity of the
continuous improvement process, the PT’s in the teams can focus on eliminating losses in the OEE of
their ‘own’ machines and maintenance tasks. Once the OEE is revised and gives reliable and accurate
information, concrete short-term goals can be set and be evaluated. Formal meetings between the
PT’s of the teams and members of the FI-team should be planned in order to exchange problems,
findings and knowledge.
8.2.4 Embedding of improvements in standards

Within mini-factory 1 standard activities which are repeated several times a day are carried out in
various ways and so often not carried out in an efficient way. By defining these work processes in
SOP’s a certain situation can be fixed, which means that a certain level of equipment-efficiency can be
fixed. Then, by using creativity and innovation ability these standards can be improved. The FI-team
has to play a leading role in the improved implementation of SOP’s.
First, all the currently present SOP’s (like one-point-lessons) have to be traced, collected and checked
on completeness. Then, a library has to be created in which the SOP’s can be stored and managed.
Finally, the SOP’s have to be present at the locations where they are used as reminder.
It has to be clear for the employees why the standards are used and that it is inevitable in optimizing
the production process (OEE). E.g. the necessity and the benefits of it can easily be illustrated with an
example like the tobacco change where clearly expensive production time is spoiled. Bad behavior of
employees must not be tolerated by management. If the management does not emphasize the
importance of it, especially in the start-up phase, personnel will be prone to do it their own way.

Involvement of the shop floor workers in improving the standards will make them more willing to
accept the new standards and use them as guidelines.
9 Conclusions & Recommendations
This research started with a preliminary investigation in order to determine how BAT Niemeyer scored
on the TPM principles. The scope of the following main investigation was set on the two lowest scoring
principles, ‘cultural awareness’ and ‘elimination of losses’.
The main objective of the main investigation was to determine the causes for the relative low
integration of the ‘cultural awareness’ and ‘elimination of losses’ TPM principles at BAT Niemeyer.
Subsequently, recommendations had to be made in order to achieve a structural improved
implementation of these principles resulting in an OEE increase.
The existing lack of ‘cultural awareness’ can mainly be assigned to shortcomings of senior and middle
management in the performance of activities within the Measuring & Evaluation-, Communication &
Information- and Empowerment categories. These categories of activities were statistically proven to
be of significant influence on employee commitment at BAT Niemeyer.
In order to increase employee commitment at BAT Niemeyer results of the TPM implementation
continually have to be measured, monitored and followed through the process. In formal meetings
concrete short-, mid- and long-term goals have to be set in terms of measurable and quantifiable
results and have to be evaluated per team. Furthermore, because misunderstandings exist,
employees have to be provided with sufficient information about the exact goals, guidelines and
benefits of TPM and how it influences their daily tasks. So, open and meaningful communication about
aims and goals of TPM is essential. Finally, in order to create commitment, responsibility related to
TPM implementation has to be shared with the shop floor workers which results in involvement, job
satisfaction and ownership. When the management is not able to create an environment in which
employees feel recognized and involved, employees will not have the drive to contribute to the
organization’s goals.
The ‘elimination of losses’ process at BAT Niemeyer has several shortcomings which have to be
improved. A model machine has to be selected that acts as a guideline for the replication of
improvements and lessons within TPM over the factory. The measurement and calculation of the OEE
has to be improved. The current OEE cannot form the basis for improvement actions. A cross-
functional Focused-Improvement team has to be formed which will drive improvements in the factory

and aims at maximum engagement of the shop floor workers. The use of SOP’s has to be improved.
Causes of losses can be eliminated and embedded in the organization by improving the SOP’s.
Besides the implementation of the preceding improvements the workload has to be taken down, so
time can be spent on TPM activities. Furthermore, untrained employees have to indicated and
educated so that all of them are able to work according the TPM philosophy. Now the reorganization is
carried out the “old” master plan can be picked up again.
Reflection & Further investigation
In literature and in this research TPM is divided into different principles which are considered as
separate parts of the TPM concept. During the research I discovered that in practice these principles
are highly inter related and it is very hard to consider them individually. So, eventually it would be
better to consider the concept as a whole. However, it was impossible due to time limitations.
Enabling activities (Hansson & Backlund, 2003) are of great influence on the intangible factors like
involvement, understanding, motivation, etc., and so affect employee commitment. In the research
three of the categories were proven to be statistically of significant influence. Nevertheless, these
activities must not be seen as a comprehensive means to create commitment. During the research I
discovered that the social relations and the characteristics of the team members could probably be of
great impact on the performance of the team. Some team members do not work in a co-operative
manner. This affects the morale of the team and so the performance of the team. Therefore further
investigation within group development is desirable in order to optimize team performance.
References
 Aalders, J.M.M., e.a., Total Productive Maintenance, Kluwer Technische Boeken B.V., 1993.
 Ahlmann, H., (1993), Increased Reliability and Efficient Maintenance, (in Swedish), Lund Institute of
Technology, Sweden.
 Allen, R.S. and Kilmann, R.H. (2001), The role of the reward system for a total quality management-
based strategy, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 110-31.
 Bamber, C.J., Sharp, J.M. and Hides, M.T. (1999), Factors affecting successful implementation of total
productive maintenance: a UK manufacturing case study perspective, Journal of Quality in
Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 162-81.

 Beer, M. Eisenstat, R. and Spector, B. (1992), “Why change programs don’t produce change”, HBR,
November/December.
 Bowler, D.J. and Leonard, R. (1994a), Economic considerations underlying the adoption of reliability-
centered maintenance, Proceedings of Life Management of Power Plants, Edinburgh, pp. 14-20.
 Chan, F.T.S. Chan, Lau, H.C.W., Ip, R.W.L., Chan, H.K., Kong, S., Implementation of total productive
maintenance: A case study, International Journal Production economics, 95, 2005, pp. 71-94.
 Clark, H.J. (1991), Totaly quality management: getting started, Totaly Quality Management, Vol. 2
No. 1, pp. 29-38.
 Cooke, F. L., Implementing TPM in plant maintenance: some organizational barriers, International
Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 17, No. 9, 2000, pp. 1003-1016.
 De Leeuw, A.C.J., Bedrijfskundig management: Primair proces, strategie en organisatie, Assen, The
Netherlands, Van Gorcum & Comp. B.V., 2000.
 Garcia Arca, J., Prado Prado, J.C, University of Vigo, Personnel participation as a key factor for success
in maintenance program implementation: A case study, International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management, Vol. 57 No. 3, 2008, , pp. 247-258, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
 Hair Jr., Joseph F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E, Tatham, R.L., Multivariate Data Analysis,
Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1995.
 Hansson, J., Backlund, F., Lycke, L., Managing commitment: increasing the odds for successful
implementation of TQM, TPM or RCM, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management,
Vol. 20, No. 9, 2003, pp. 993-1008.
 Hartman, E.H. (1992), Successfully Installing TPM in a Non-Japanese Plant, TPM Press, Pittsburgh, PA.
 Hipkin, I.B. and Lockett, A.G. (1995), A study of maintenance technology implementation,
OMEGA, The International Journal of Management Science, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 79-88.
 Hoondert, R.P. (2007) , Total Productive Maintenance bij Dutch Cocoa, University of Groningen.
 Jardine, A.K.S., Lin, D., Banjevic, D., A review on machinery diagnostics and prognostics implementing
condition-based maintenance, Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 20, 2006, pp. 1483-1510.

 Johnson, P., Lesshammar, M., 1999. Evaluation and improvement of manufacturing performance
measurement systems— the role of OEE. International Journal of Operations and Production
Management 19 (1), 55–78.
 Kanji, G.K. and Asher, M. (1993), Implementation of total quality management, Total Quality
Management, Vol. 4, pp. 103-21.
 Laszlo, G.P. (1999), Implementing a quality management program – three Cs of success:

commitment, culture, cost, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 231-7.
 Ljungberg, O., Measurement of overall equipment effectiveness as a basis for TPM activities,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 18 No. 5, 1998, pp. 495-507.
 Lycke, L. (2003), Team development when implementing TPM, Total Quality Management, Vol. 14 No.
2, pp. 205-13.
 Malhotra, , N. K., Marketing research : an applied approach ,3rd [European] ed , FT Prentice Hall ,
2007
 Nakajima, S., Introduction to TPM, Productivity Press, 1988.
 Nicholas, J.M., Competitive Manufacturing Management; continuous improvement, lean production

and customer-focused quality, McGraw-Hill, 1998.
 Oechsner, R., Pfeffer, M., Pfitzner, L., Binder, H., Muller, E., Vonderstrass, T., From overall equipment
efficiency (OEE) to overall Fab effectiveness (OFE), Materials Science in Semiconductor Processing, 5,
2003, pp. 333-339.
 Saad, G.H. and Siha, S. (2000), Managing quality: critical links and a contingency model, International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 20 No. 10, pp. 1146-63.
 Schawn, C.A. and Khan, I.U. (1994), Guidelines for successful RCM implementation, Proceedings of
ASME Joint International Power Generation Conference, Phoenix, AZ, pp. 1-16.
 Shaffer, R. and Thomson, H. (1992), “Successful change programs begin with results”, HBR,
January/February.
 Sharma, R.K., Kumar, D., Kumar, P., Manufacturing excellence through TPM implementation: a
practical analysis, Industrial management & Data Systems, Vol.106 No. 2, 2006, pp. 256-280.

 Shin, D., Kalinowski, J.G. and El-Enein, G.A. (1998), Critical implementation issues in total quality
management, SAM Advanced Management Journal, Vol. 63 No. 1, pp. 10-14.
 Tsang, A.H.C. and Chan, P.K. (2000), TPM Implementation in China: a case study, International Journal
of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 2, pp. 144-57.
 Wireman, T., Total Productive Maintenance, An American Approach, Industrial Press, 1991.
Appendices
Appendix 1: TPM Assessment tool
CULTURAL AWARENESS
1 Plant Management communicates with shop floor workers regarding employee satisfaction
and organizational objectives at least twice per year.
2 Employees are able to accurately describe the organizations goals and how their job
contributes to the achievement of those goals.
3 There is a formal process for production workers to regularly receive feedback on problems
detected in downstream processes and at the customer.
4 There is a formal process in place that provides shop floor workers the opportunity to work in
groups to address performance, quality, or safety issues.
5 Shop floor employees understand and can use common performance metrics to monitor and
improve production processes.
6 When problems in the production process occur they are detected and investigated within 10
minutes of the first occurrence (e.g. Whether it be engineering, maintenance, or support
personnel, there is a sense of urgence to rectify problems when they occur.)
7 Employees know the six wastes, are actively involved in identifying waste in their processes
and are empowered to work to reduce or eliminate the waste.
8 Production engineers and support staff routinely go to the spot of a problem in production to
assess the actual situation and talk to production workers.
9 De basisprincipes van TPM worden duidelijk door het management uitgedragen.
5S

1 The plant is generally clear of all unnecessary materials or scrap and isles are clear of
obstructions.
2 Machines have all safety guard devices operative, and are and locked out immediately when
broken down.
3 Lines on the floor clearly distinguish work areas, paths, and material handling isles. Signs
clearly identify production, inventory staging, and material drop areas.
4 All employees are considerate of housekeeping and operators consider daily “clean-up & put
away” activities part of their jobs.
5 There is "a place for everything and everything in its place"; every container, tool and part rack
is clearly labelled and easily accessible to the user. People using tools, parts, fixtures, quality
gages, etc. know where to find them.
6 Updated display boards containing job training, safety, operating measurable, production data,
quality problem and countermeasure information are readily visible throughout the plant.
7 Product quality and productivity boards are updated frequently for each line or process (e.g.
product quality; returns, scrap, FTT, SPC. Productivity; production, uptime, utilization, etc.
Operators get regular feedback on the team’s performance.)
8 Check-sheets describing and tracking the top defects are posted and up to date at each work
station (e.g. Each operator is aware of the key quality points and defect history of the process
they are doing).
9 Alle werkplekken binnen de organisatie zijn volgens het 5S principe ingericht.
10 There is good, effective communication between production shifts in the plant (e.g.
Equipment, quality problems, production schedules, etc. are communicated daily, and
production areas are left “ready to go” by the previous shift)
EDUCATIE EN TRAINING
1 A Standard Operating Procedure (or SOP) has been developed and used to train operators for
each production process.

2 Operators are given a formal training period before doing a job on their own. Few defects or
production slowdowns are attributable to new/inexperienced operators.
3 Production operators are multi-process capable; fully trained and able to do the work at each `
station in a production cell or each job in a production line team.
4 Maintenance team managers and workers have been trained in the basics of TPM.
5 Employees have been trained in the continuous improvement methods and have been
affected by or participated in a continuous improvement project.
6 Workers have been trained in the basics of error-proofing and there is a team responsible for
analyzing production defects and identifying error proofing opportunities.
7 Op het moment dat er een nieuwe installatie in het proces wordt opgenomen, worden alle
betrokken werknemers geschoold zodat ze de installatie kunnen bedienen.
ELIMINEREN VAN VERLIEZEN
1 Frequently repeated, non-production operations in the plant are standardized such as change-
over processes, quality checks, equipment and perishable tool checks, etc.
2 SOP’s are time dated and show what and when improvements have been made.
3 SOP’s throughout the plant are regularly audited for completeness and adherence.
4 Operators individually perform their processes according to the process sheets or SOP’s and
make few method or technique errors.
5 Defective items are immediately detected when they occur in the production process.
6 Continuous improvement projects are structured, planned, and time boxed; successes are
recognized and expanded throughout the plant.
7 Voor alle installaties binnen de organisatie is bekend wat de availability is.
8 Voor alle geproduceerde producten binnen de organisatie is bekend hoeveel % er defect is.
9 Voor alle installaties binnen de organisatie is bekend wat de efficiency is.
10 Voor alle installaties binnen de organisatie is bekend wat de OEE is.

11 Voor alle werknemers binnen de organisatie is bekend welke soort verliezen van invloed zijn
op welke parameter van de OEE.
12 De organisatie maakt gebruik van analyse methoden om de primaire oorzaak van verliezen te
achterhalen.
PREVENTIEF ONDERHOUD
1 Al het preventieve onderhoud dat uitgevoerd dient te worden, is vastgelegd in een

onderhoudsplan.
2 Van de veel voorkomende verliezen en defecten is het duidelijk waar deze verliezen en
defecten vandaan komen.
3 Het achterhalen van de oorzaken van defecten gebeurt aan de hand van gestructureerde
methoden als FMEA of RCA .
4 Voor alle werknemers binnen de organisatie is duidelijk wat de meest voorkomende defecten
zijn en wat de reden is van die defecten.
5 Error-proofing devices and methods have been implemented or are being developed to
eliminate the top production defects for each work area in the plant.
6 Preventive maintenance activity lists are posted in work areas and item completions are
tracked over time.
7 Preventive maintenance activities are focused on increasing utilization and minimizing cycle
time variation.
8 Preventive maintenance responsibilities are defined for both maintenance and production
workers.
9 Al het preventieve onderhoud is vast gelegd is standaarden.
10 Elke installatie heeft een norm om duidelijk te maken op welk moment het preventieve
onderhoud uitgevoerd zou moeten worden.
AUTONOOM ONDERHOUD
1 Alle onderhoudstaken die door de operator moeten worden uitgevoerd zijn vast gelegd in
standaarden.
2 Bij het opstellen van de standaarden is de operator ondersteund door een specialist.

3 Alle gereedschappen en administratieve hulpmiddelen voor het uitvoeren van autonoom
onderhoud zijn aanwezig.
4 Operators houden zich naast het bedienen van de productie-installaties bezig met het
schoonmaken, smeren en controleren van installaties.
5 Er wordt gewerkt volgend een algemeen onderhoudsplan dat is opgesteld door de

onderhoudsdienst.
6 Er is voldoende tijd ingepland voor het uitvoeren van autonoom onderhoud.
7 Er is terugkoppeling naar de operators over de behaalde resultaten die zijn behaald door het
autonome onderhoud.
8 Operators rapporteren naar aanleiding van het gedane onderhoud richting de

onderhoudsdienst de volgende punten: verholpen storingen en/of afwijkingen, afwijkingen in
het uitvoeren van de standaarden en aanvraag voor onderhoud wat door de operator niet
gedaan kan worden omdat hij daar de vaardigheden niet voor bezit.
EARLY EQUIPMENT MANAGEMENT
QUESTIONS: SCORE*
1 There is a formal process in place to solicit ideas and suggestions for improvements from all
employees and to recognize their participation (e.g. Suggestion systems, quality circles,
incentive programs, etc.)
2 Operators provide input and are involved in the process of job design, engineering and
standardization.
3 Nadat een nieuwe installatie opgeleverd is, wordt het onderhoud aan de installatie uitgevoerd
op basis van de beschrijving van de leverancier.
4 Een nieuwe installatie wordt direct in het plan voor preventief - en autonoom onderhoud
opgenomen.
5 Bij het ontwerpen, bouwen en aanbesteden van nieuwe installaties wordt er nauw
samengewerkt tussen operators, engineering en onderhoud.
Results TPM tool

Manufacturing Manager 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Score (0-10)
Cultural awareness 2 1 3 3 1 1 1 3 1 4.4
5S 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 5.5
Educatie & Training 2 3 3 1 3 4 4 7.1
Elimineren van verliezen 3 2 0 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 1 5.4
Preventief onderhoud 3 2 0 1 3 2 2 3 3 3 5.5
Autonoom onderhoud 2 2 3 2 3 2 2 3 5.9
Early Equipment management 2 2 3 4 3 7.0
Researcher 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Score (0-10)
5S 3 3 3 4 3 2 2 0 3 2 6.3
Quality Manager 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Score (0-10)
5S 3 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 4 3 7.8
Appendix 2: ‘Cultural Awareness’ Questionnaire

Score: 1 = helemaal niet mee eens
2 = gedeeltelijk niet mee eens

Stelling: 3 = neutraal
4 = gedeeltelijk mee eens
5 = helemaal mee eens
Ondersteuning en leiderschap
1 Mijn leidinggevende laat mij duidelijk zien dat werken volgens TPM erg belangrijk is 1 2 3 4 5
voor BAT Niemeyer.
Toelichting:
2 Mijn leidinggevende heeft mij laten zien wat de voordelen van TPM voor mijn eigen 1 2 3 4 5
werk zijn.
Toelichting:
3 Ik krijg van mijn leidinggevende voldoende tijd en middelen om het 1 2 3 4 5
productieproces te verbeteren.
Toelichting:
4 Als ik een idee heb voor verbetering of het ergens niet mee eens ben wordt hier 1 2 3 4 5
door mijn leidinggevende naar geluisterd.
Toelichting:
Ontwikkeling strategisch besef
5 Het is mij duidelijk hoe TPM op de lange termijn bijdraagt aan het voortbestaan 1 2 3 4 5
van onze productie in Groningen (“Made in Groningen”).
Toelichting:
Planning van de TPM implementatie
6 Het is mij duidelijk hoe ver we op dit moment zijn met de invoering van TPM. 1 2 3 4 5
Toelichting:
7 Het is mij duidelijk hoe de invoering van TPM verder moet verlopen.
Toelichting:

8 Ik word als lid van een team samen met collega’s betrokken bij de invoering van 1 2 3 4 5
TPM.
Toelichting:
9 Het is voor ons team duidelijk wat er op het gebied van TPM van ons verwacht 1 2 3 4 5
wordt.
Toelichting:
Ontwikkeling verwachtingspatroon en eigen verantwoordelijkheid
10 BAT Niemeyer bespreekt met ons team wat wij zelf van TPM verwachten. 1 2 3 4 5
Toelichting:
11 3 Ik mag bij het werken volgens TPM ook zelf bepaalde beslissingen nemen die 1 2 3 4 5
invloed hebben op de productie.
Toelichting:
Meten van resultaten en evaluatie

12 De resultaten van de invoering van TPM op de productie worden gemeten. 1 2 3 4 5
Toelichting:
13 De gemeten resultaten van de invoering van TPM worden met ons team besproken. 1 2 3 4 5
Toelichting:
14 Uit de gemeten resultaten wordt mij duidelijk wat voor mijzelf de voordelen van 1 2 3 4 5
TPM zijn.
Toelichting:
Training en opleiding
15 Ik ben goed getraind in de basisprincipes (Kaizen, 5s, Een-punts-lessen, samenstelling 1 2 3 4 5
MOEE) van TPM en weet hoe ik die in mijn dagelijkse werk moet gebruiken.
Toelichting:
16 BAT Niemeyer biedt mij de mogelijkheid tot het volgen van TPM-cursussen of – 1 2 3 4 5
trainingen.

Toelichting:
Communicatie en informatie
17 Ik krijg vanuit het bedrijf voldoende goede informatie over het doel van TPM. 1 2 3 4 5
Toelichting:
18 Ik krijg vanuit het bedrijf voldoende goede informatie over de betekenis van TPM 1 2 3 4 5
voor mijn eigen dagelijkse werkzaamheden.
Toelichting:
Algemeen vertrouwen in TPM
19 Ik heb vertrouwen in TPM en ik ben gemotiveerd om het succesvol te maken. 1 2 3 4 5
Appendix 3: Questionnaire Results

Item 7 Item 8
Item 9 Item 10
Item 11 Item 12

Appendix 4: Production Forms

Appendix 4: Production forms
Ochtend Produktieformulier
MOEE Pakkerijen
Datum: RPM:
Machine: Naam:
(a) (b) (c) (D)
Batch Produktomschrijving Spec. Nr. Blend Produktie Lege bakken Uitval (a+b+c) / rpm TRW
Uitgepland via bedrijfsbureau en goedgekeurd :

Lektest (aanvang dienst, machine overdracht, iedere twee uur) Lunchpauze min.
Tijd: Proeven / testen KD min.
0 - 100 Perfect TPM-activiteiten min.
100 - 200 Goed Werkoverleg min.
200 - 300 Actie Uitgepland anders min.
> 300 Afkeur Totaal (E) : min.
Controle uiterlijke aspecten Opmerkingen:

Tijd: 6:30 7:15 8:15 9:15 10:15 11:15 12:15 13:15 14:00
Paraaf:
Controle specificatie (aanvang dienst, machine overdracht, produktwissel)

Tijd: 6:00
Paraaf:
Figure 1: Production form front side

Batch Batch Batch Batch
6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00
tijd freq tijd freq tijd freq tijd freq
Weger / Jacobsladder
Pouche maak/invoer
Pouche-overg./inslagkam
Binnensealunit
Meeneemketting / band
Tape unit
Banderollen unit
storing
Afvoercontrole
Checkweger
Printer / Laser
Flowwrap / Cello. Mach
Inloopverzamelaar
Parcel/TBD machine
Bundeltransport
Casepacker
Omkasting
Starten/ Afsluiten
Wisselen
Geen personeel
Bijvullen materiaal
Geen materiaal
stilstand
Slecht materiaal
Wachten TSE
Wachten OGP
Poetsen / AO
Stofzuigen / Schoonmaken
AGP down/dozentrans.
Op extern verzoek
Totaal stilstand & storing : + + + =

Pouchecontrole
Flapcontrole
korte stop
Opmerkingen: Totaal korte stops :

+ + + +
D
=
Productietijd : + + + =
+
E
=
Totaal geschreven tijd
Figure 2: Production form backside

07 - Salas - Ramirez - Bernal

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

07 - Salas - Ramirez - Bernal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Implementing Total

Faculty of Economics and Business

Author: Menno Burkunk

Student Number: 1271059

Company: British American Tobacco Niemeyer

First Supervisor: Drs. J. Veldman

Second Supervisor: Dr. Ir. W. Klingenberg

Company Supervisor: Willy Smink (Quality Manager)

Date: September 2009

By finalizing my thesis a fantastic time as a student in Groningen has ended.

Groningen, September 2009

Implementing Total Productive Maintenance at BAT Niemeyer 3

Implementing Total Productive Maintenance at BAT Niemeyer 4

Implementing Total Productive Maintenance at BAT Niemeyer 5

Executive Summary ...............................................................................................................4

Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................6

1.1 The history of British American Tobacco Niemeyer B.V. ..................................................... 10

1.2 BAT Niemeyer’s mission and characteristics ...................................................................... 12

1.3 Production process ............................................................................................................ 13

1.3.1 The primary manufacturing process (preparation) ..................................................... 13

1.3.2 The secondary manufacturing process (packing) ........................................................ 14

1.4 Production organization .................................................................................................... 14

1.5 Improvement of production process .................................................................................. 15

1.5.1 Approach ................................................................................................................... 15

1.5.2 Results ....................................................................................................................... 16

2 Problem analysis and research plan .............................................................................16

2.1 Problem analysis................................................................................................................ 17

2.2 Research plan .................................................................................................................... 17

2.3 Total Productive Maintenance (TPM) ................................................................................. 18

2.3.1 Characteristics and objectives .................................................................................... 19

2.3.2 Conditions for application .......................................................................................... 20

2.3.3 Principles of TPM ....................................................................................................... 20

3 Preliminary investigation ..............................................................................................24

3.1 TPM Assessment ............................................................................................................... 25

Implementing Total Productive Maintenance at BAT Niemeyer 6

3.1.2 Respondents .............................................................................................................. 25

3.3 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 27

4 Main investigation ........................................................................................................28

4.1 Objectives ......................................................................................................................... 28

4.2 Research questions............................................................................................................ 28

4.3 Sub-questions .................................................................................................................... 29

4.4 Method of main investigation ............................................................................................ 29

4.5 Research boundary ............................................................................................................ 30

5 Theoretical framework .................................................................................................31

5.1 Cultural awareness ............................................................................................................ 31

5.2 Elimination of losses .......................................................................................................... 34

6 Diagnosis within the ‘Cultural Awareness’ principle.....................................................40

6.1 Method of the survey ........................................................................................................ 40

6.2 Analysis of the data ........................................................................................................... 42

6.3 Survey results .................................................................................................................... 45

6.3.1 Mean scores of the questionnaire items .................................................................... 45

6.3.2 Descriptive statistics & Cronbach’s Alpha ................................................................... 45

6.3.3 Summary of the questionnaire results ....................................................................... 49

6.4 Multiple Regression analysis .............................................................................................. 51

6.5 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 56

7 Diagnosis within the ‘Elimination of Losses’ principle ................................................57

7.1 Selection of a model machine ............................................................................................ 57

7.2 OEE measurement & target setting.................................................................................... 58

7.3 Determination of the causes of losses & creating improvements ....................................... 60

Implementing Total Productive Maintenance at BAT Niemeyer 7

7.5 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 63

8.1 Improvement of the ‘cultural awareness’ .......................................................................... 64

8.1.1 Measuring & Evaluation ............................................................................................. 64