See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/319881719

Studying the Requirements of (TPM) Total Productive Maintenance in

Production System

Thesis · September 2016

CITATIONS READS

3 3,839

1 author:

Mohanad Sahib
University of Technology, Iraq
2 PUBLICATIONS 3 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Total Productive Maintenance View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohanad Sahib on 04 June 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Republic of Iraq
Ministry of Higher Education
And Scientific Research
University of Technology
Production Engineering
and Metallurgy Department

Studying the Requirements of (TPM)

Total Productive Maintenance in
Production System

A Thesis submitted to The Department of Production Engineering and Metallurgy

of University of Technology in a partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
Degree of Master of Science
In
Industrial Engineering

BY

Mohanad A. Sahib
M.Sc. Industrial Engineering

Supervised by

Prof. Dr. Lamyaa Mohammed Dawood

2016
Abstract
In this research TPM pillars are investigated to reveal the big losses in
line No. five / Al-Forat factory in Baghdad Company for soft drinks (as a
case study) since this line is facing the highest breakdowns at this
company. The data was collected throughout two consecutive years (2014
and 2015). Applying TPM matrices revealed poor Overall Equipment
Effectiveness (OEE) values (average of 11% in 2014 and 9% in 2015).
These data show that Maximum breakdowns in machines causing product
failure are due to mechanical and measurement causes by 50%.

Detailed result analysis shows almost constant quality rate value of

97% (acceptable but less than International PepsiCo Inc. specification of
99%). Also results reveal low performance rate (average 28% in 2014 and
22% in 2015). Low availability rate indicate lack of resources use for this
line (average 37% in 2014 and 40% in 2015). Also poor results of Overall
Resource Effectiveness (ORE) (average 8% in 2014 and 7% in 2015).

OEE software version (13.1) is also employed to reveal detailed data

(day-by-day), in shift order that will improve decision making at all
management levels. Knowing that this line is served by planned
maintenance implemented by KRONES Company every 5000 operating
hours. Therefore, a developed TPM implementation methodology is
introduced that will employ two important pillars (Autonomous
maintenance and 5Ss) of TPM strategy that could boost planned
maintenance activities, enhance availability and productivity. Also
implementation of TPM strategy plan is introduced throughout 32 months
starting from January 2017. The introduced two pillars are assumed to
increase productivity by (20%) and availability by (35%).

I
 CONTENT
Abstract I
Content II
List of Figures VI
List of Tables VIII
List of Abbreviations IX
List of Symbols X

Chapter One
Background and Research Objectives
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Research Environment 4
1.3 Research Objectives 6
1.4 Thesis Organization 6

Chapter Two
Framework of TPM Strategy, Literature Survey and
Methodology
2.1 Introduction 9
2.2 Definitions of TPM 9
2.3 TPM Goals and Benefits 10
2.4 TPM Pillars 11
2.4.1 5S 12
2.4.2 Autonomous Maintenance 13
2.4.3 KaiZen 15
2.4.4 Planned Maintenance 16
2.4.5 Quality Maintenance 17
2.4.6 Training 18

II
 2.4.7 Office TPM 19
2.4.8 Safety, Health and Environment 19
2.6 Comparison of JIT, TQM and TPM 20
2.6 TPM Tools/ Metrices 22
2.6.1 Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE) 22
2.6.2 Overall Resource Effectiveness (ORE) 24
2.6.2.1 Readiness (R) 26
2.6.2.2 Availability of facility (Af) 26
2.6.2.3 Changeover Efficiency (C) 27
2.6.2.4 Availability of material (Am) 27
2.6.2.5 Availability of manpower (Amp) 28
2.6.2.6 Performance Efficiency (P) 28
2.6.2.7 Quality Rate (Q) 28
2.7 TPM Implementation Phases 29
2.7.1 Awareness Phase 29
2.7.2 Organization Phase 30
2.7.3 Planning Phase 30
2.7.4 Implementation Phase 31
2.7.5 Assessment Phase 32
2.8 Challenges and Success factors of TPM Implementation 33
2.9 Literature Survey 34
2.10 Research Limitations 40
2.11 Proposed TPM Methodology 41
2.12 Concluding Remarks 42

Chapter Three
Case Study: Application of The Proposed Methodology
3.1 Introduction 44

III
3.2 Production Line No. Five/ Al-Forat Factory 44
3.3Analysis of Maintenance Activities for Production Line Five 49
3.4 Production Line No. Five Breakdowns 50
3.1 Concluding Remarks 51

Chapter Four
Analysis of Results and Discussion
4.1 Introduction 53
4.3 Analysis of Production Line Five 53
4.4 Employing TPM Tools for Production Line Five: 61
4.4.1 OEE Tool for Line Five 62
4.4.2 PRE Tool for Line Five 70
4.4.2.1 Readiness (R) Value 70
4.4.2.2 Availability of Facility (Af) Value 70
4.4.2.3 Changeover Efficiency (C) Value 71
4.4.2.4 Availability of Material (Am) Value 72
4.4.2.5 Availability of Manpower (Amp) Value 73
4.4.2.6 Performance Rate (P) Value 73
4.4.2.7 Quality Rate (Q) Value 73
4.5 OEE Software 79
4.5.1 OEE Software Input 79
4.5.1.1 Data Validation Sheet 79
4.5.1.2 Log Sheet 80
4.5.2 OEE Software Output 81
4.5.2.1 OEE Data Sheet 81
4.5.2.2 Dash Board Sheet 82
4.6 Proposed TPM Implementation 83
4.7 Concluding Remarks 86

IV
 Chapter Five
Conclusions and Recommendations for Future Work
5.1 Introduction 89
5.2 Research Summary 89
5.3 Conclusions 89
5.4 Recommendations for Future Work 90
References 93

List of Figures
Figure Page
Figure
Number No.
Figure (1-1) Evolution of Different Maintenance Strategies 3
Figure (2-1) Eight Pillars of TPM 12
Figure (2-2) 5Ss Method 13
Relationships between TPM and Lean Manufacturing
Figure (2-3) 20
building blocks
Figure (2-4) OEE based on six major production losses 24
Figure (2-6) TPM Implementation Phases 29
Figure (2-7) I operate and I fix flow chart 33
Figure (2-8) Proposed TPM Methodology 41
Flow Diagram for Production Line No. Five/ Al-Forat
Figure (3-1) 47
Factory
Figure (3-2) Production Line Machines in 3D 48
Figure (3-3) Detailed Planned Maintenance Activities Time Line 49
Figure (3-4) Pareto Chart for production line breakdowns (Jan – May) 50

V
Figure (4-1) Production data During 2015 56
Difference Between Planned and Breakdown Times on
Figure (4-2) 57
2014
Difference Between Planned and Breakdown Times on
Figure (4-3) 57
2015
Differences Between Designed operating and Actual
Figure (4-4) 58
production Times on 2014
Differences Between Designed operating and Actual
Figure (4-5) 58
production Times on 2015
Figure (4-6) Actual Production and Defective Products in 2014 59
Figure (4-7) Actual Production and Defective Products in 2015 60
Categories of Defective Products According to Process
Figure (4-8) 61
(Jan – May) 2015
Figure (4-9) OEE Factors in 2014 65
Figure (4-10) OEE Factors in 2015 65
Figure (4-11) OEE for Two Operational Speeds in 2014 67
Figure (4-12) OEE values for high speed during (2014) and (2015) years 68
Figure (4-13) Total OEE percentage during 2014 and 2015 69
Figure (4-14) Set-Up time during (2014) and (2015) years 72
Figure (4-15) ORE values during 2014 76
Figure (4-16) ORE values during 2015 77
Figure (4-17) OEE and ORE in 2014 78
Figure (4-18) OEE and ORE in 2015 78
Figure (4-19) Sample of Log Sheet Data of OEE Software 80
Figure (4-20) OEE Data Window of OEE Software 81
Figure (4-21) Sample of OEE software charts 82
Figure (4-22) Sample of Waterfall Chart for August 2014 83
Figure (4-23) Proposed TPM Implementation 84

VI
 List of Tables
Page
Table No. Table
No.
Table (1-1) Comparison Between Maintenance Strategies 5
Table (2-1) Direct and Indirect Benefits of TPM 11
Table (2-2) Autonomous Maintenance steps 15
Required Ability from operator and maintenance
Table (2-3) 18
workers
Table (2-4) Comparison among JIT, TQM, and TPM 21
Table (2-5) Classifications of ORE losses 25
Detailed production processes of line five / Al-Forat
Table (3-1) 46
factory
Table (4-1) Production Data during (2014) and (2015) years 54
Table (4-2) OEE Values for Production Line Five During 2014 63
Table (4-3) OEE Values for Production Line Five During 2015 64
Comparison Between OEE World Class and the
Table (4-4) 70
Resulted Values for Line Five
Table (4-5) Set-Up Time for (2014) and (2015) years 71
Table (4-6) ORE Values of (2014) year 74
Table (4-7) ORE Values of (2015) year 74
Effect of AM and 5Ss implementation on production
Table (4-8) 86
line five

VII
 List of Abbreviations
Af Availability of facility
AM Autonomous Maintenance
Am Availability of materials
Amp Availability of manpower
API Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient
CBM Condition Based Maintenance
CMMS Computerized Maintenance Management System
JIPM Japan Institute of Plant Maintenance
JIT Just-In-Time
MTBF Mean Time Between Failure
MTTR Mean Time To Repair
OEE Overall Equipment Effectiveness
OPE Overall Plant Efficiency
ORE Overall Resource Effectiveness
P Performance
PLC Programmable Logic Control
PM Planned Maintenance
Q Quality
QC Quality Control
R Readiness
RBM Reliability Based Maintenance
SHE Safety, Health, Environment
SMDP Semi-Markov Decision Process
SMED Single Minute Exchange of Die
TA Technical Availability
TEEP Total Effective Equipment Performance
TPM Total Productive Maintenance

VIII
TQM Total Quality Maintenance
UOM Unit of Measure

List of Symbols

A Morning shift
B Night shift
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
hr. Hour
L Litter
Max. Maximum
Min. Minimum
ml Milliliter

IX
 Chapter One

Background and Research Objectives

1.1 Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to outline a general overview
about TPM and maintenance. Describe the environment of
implementation and specify the objectives that needs to be
accomplished to solve the research problems.
After the improvements in production strategies and the
flexibility of production lines, it becomes important to find better
maintenance strategy especially in the areas of automation and large-
scale mechanization [1, 2]. Therefore, manufacturing organizations
employed several strategies to improve maintenance effectiveness,
such as Total Productive Maintenance (TPM) [3]. Decreasing
maintenance cost is one of TPM goals and the traditional maintenance
could represent 15% to 40% of the production cost [4].
TΡM implementation strategy delivers organizations with a
guide to fundamentally convert their shop floor by participating
process, technology and culture [5]. The impression is to acquire
competitive advantage by eliminating all stoppages in the processes,
predicting potential breakdowns, insulating them and including
operators with maintenance team in preventive maintenance activities
[6, 7].
The benefits realized throughout effective TPM implementation
strategy encompassed Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE)
advancements by 14˗45 %, inventory decrease by 45 ˗ 58 % and
improvement in workshop productivity by 22 ˗ 41%. For example,
Nissan Motor decreased breakdowns by 80%, defects by 85% and
inventory by 55% during the first three years of TPM implementation
[1].

1
 Chapter One

Maintenance is defined as: “all activities aimed at keeping an

item in or restoring it to the physical state considered necessary for the
fulfillment of its production function”, while the maintenance concept
is “a set of maintenance policies and actions of various types and the
general decision structure in which these are planned and supported”
[1, 3]. Maintenance is evolved as shown in Fig. (1.1).
The evolution begins with “Reactive” maintenance where the
majority of labor hours are reactive in nature and the organization is in
constant firefighting behavior. It is also called breakdown or run to
failure maintenance. Then, the improvements process setting the
expectation that all maintenance actions should be “Planned”. Planned
maintenance is also called preventive maintenance that is
implemented at fixed intervals by repair, service or component change
[9].
Further improvements have been executed to reach “Predictive”
maintenance. This type focuses on assessing the condition of the asset
throughout the analysis of vibration, oil, voltages, quality, etc. It is
also referred to Condition Based Maintenance (CBM). While the
predictive maintenance employs condition monitoring to help in
predicting the failure occurrence, it doesn't always identify the root
cause of the failure. Maintenance strategies continue to mature
towards, “Proactive” strategy, which focuses on finding the root cause
of failure and aiming to eliminate its occurrence again by making
necessary changes in production, operation or construction. It is also
called Reliability Based Maintenance (RBM).

2
 Chapter One

Fig. (1.1) Evolution of Different Maintenance Strategies [10]

3
 Chapter One

The best in class concept now reached the “strategic” or

“Enterprise” concept. “Enterprise" refers to the scope of the assets
across departments, locations, facilities and, potentially, business
units. It is helpful for those companies having multiple sites which a
shared vision of knowledge and coordination is required, such as
Total Productive Maintenance (TPM) that involves everyone in the
organization with overall view on maintenance and production
departments [10]. Detailed description of maintenance strategies and
their advantages, disadvantages and definitions is shown in Table
(1.1).
1.2 Research Environment
This study is a case study of TPM implementation at Baghdad
Company for Soft Drinks that investigate and analyze the efficiency
of production system. The study also offers a proposed methodology
for TPM implementation. The company works using continuous
production system and consists of two factories, each one includes
four production lines [8]. Some of the production lines are new and it
has been provided and installed by Germans “KRONES” Company
that is contracted with Baghdad Company for implementing the
planned maintenance.
In spite of mentioned, the process industry at the company was
facing many stoppages, breakdowns, losses and wastes especially in
Production Line Number Five in (Al-Forat factory) as it is the largest,
highest in productivity, most dependable and most recent production
line that launched its production in 2009 to produce different flavors
of soft drinks in a plastic bottles with a maximum production of
768,000 bottles a day.

4
 Chapter One

Table (1.1) Comparison Between Maintenance Strategies

Maintenance
Definition Advantages Disadvantages
Strategy
-High production
-No condition downtime.
Reactive maintenance is repairs that
monitoring related -High cost of spare parts.
are employed when equipment’s are
Reactive costs. -High risk of secondary
already broken down (also known as
-Machines are not failure.
“breakdown maintenance”).
over maintained. -Inefficient use of staff
resources.

-Maintenance is
-There are still
performed in
unscheduled breakdowns.
Actions performed on a time or controlled manner.
-Machines are repaired
machine run based on schedule that -Increased equipment
Planned when there are no faults.
detect, prevent or reduce degradation life cycle.
- Potential for incidental
of component or system. -Reducing
damages in conducting
unexpected
unneeded maintenance.
machinery failures.

-unexpected
breakdowns are
reduced.
Measurements that detect the onset of
-Parts are ordered -Additional skills are
system degradation (lower functional
when needed. required.
state), thereby allowing causal
-Equipment life is -High investment in
Predictive stressors to be eliminated or
extended. diagnostic equipment.
controlled prior to any significant
-Decrease in costs for - High investment in staff
deterioration in the component
parts and labor. training.
physical state.
-Maintenance is
performed when
convenient.

-Reduce downtime.
Stabilizing the reliability of machines
-Improve equipment
or equipment. The purpose of
reliability. - Additional skills are
proactive maintenance is to view
Proactive -Equipment life is required.
machine failure and similar problems
extended. - High investment cost.
as something that can be anticipated
-Reduce overall
and dealt with before they occur.
maintenance cost.

It is a major opportunity for

improving equipment availability,
operating performance and financial -Center of excellence.
- Time consuming.
performance. It addresses all elements -Enterprise reliability.
- Need for sufficient
Strategic of the equipment lifecycle from -Content sharing.
resources to achieve
conceptual design, manufacture / -Network supply
successful changes.
construction, commissioning, chain.
operations and maintenance to
decommissioning & retirement."

5
 Chapter One

1.3 Research Objectives

This research investigates the requirements of implementing
total productive maintenance in a production system with the aim of
increasing productivity and equipment availability throughout
following steps:
1- Exploring TPM pillars and tools and analyzing the requirements
for each one.
2- Diagnosing the current production and maintenance activities in
(Al-Forat factory) for the production line (No. five) as a case study
at Baghdad Company for soft drinks.
3- Specifying the deviation of production activities towards
improving equipment’s availability and increasing productivity.
4- Developing methodology towards TPM implementation in the
above mentioned production line.

1.4 Thesis Organization

The research is organized as follows:
Chapter Two: This chapter introduces the framework of Total
Productive Maintenance, TPM pillars, TPM tools, limitations and
implementation phases of TPM. This chapter also summarizes the
literature survey that describe TPM pillars and implementation phases
in manufacturing companies and services employing different tools
and phases of implementation.

Chapter Three: Line Five (Al-Forat factory) in Baghdad

Company for soft drinks is taken as a case study, categories of
production line breakdowns are specified, the production and
maintenance activities are outlined.

6
 Chapter One

Chapter Four: Developed TPM methodology is introduced.

Collected data for two consecutive years (2014, 2015) are analyzed
throughout TPM tools (OEE, ORE) and OEE software version 13.1 is
further employed. TPM implementation time line is proposed
throughout 32 months starting from January 2017.

Chapter Five: Conclusions from the study are presented and

possible future research recommendations are suggested in this
chapter.

7
 Chapter Two

Framework of TPM Strategy, Literature

Survey and Methodology

2.1 Introduction
TPM is a Japanese strategy; that was developed based on the
productive maintenance concept in 1970’s by Nippon Denso Co. Ltd.
of Japan, a supplier of M/s Toyota Motor Company, aiming in
maximizing equipment effectiveness .TPM seeks to maximize the
overall effectiveness of production throughout engaging all functions
and levels in an organization. TPM endeavors to uncover the hidden
capacity of ineffective and reliable equipment’s. The highest priority
of TPM activities is to improve production by reducing unplanned
stoppages and improving equipment availability [1].
TPM focuses on addressing the six main losses and wastes
correlated with production systems through affecting uninterrupted
and systematic evaluations, which will have effect on significant
improvements in production facilities. The evaluation of TPM
efficiency can facilitate significantly enhanced organizational
capabilities across various dimensions [11].
2.2 Definitions of TPM
There are many different definitions for TPM and the reason
behind this diversity is found in the adoption way of this strategy,
since some industries focus on teams working more than equipment
management, while other focus on equipment effectiveness [14].

TPM is defined as a “strategy intended to bring both functions

(production and maintenance) together by a combination of good
working practices, team working and continuous improvement” [1].

9
 Chapter Two

Nakajima defined TPM “as an innovative approach to maintenance

that optimizes equipment effectiveness, eliminates breakdowns, and
promotes autonomous maintenance by operators through day-to-day
activities involving the total workforce” [12].
While Edward Willmott claims that: "TPM seeks to engender a
company-wide approach towards achieving a standard of performance
in manufacturing, in terms of the overall effectiveness of equipment,
machines and processes, which is truly world class" [7].
2.3 TPM Goals and Benefits
TPM is a key element for lean manufacturing, thus, the big goal of
TPM is to reduce the six big losses in the production and to operate
equipment according to its designed capability. TPM takes the quality
in consideration towards zero product defect rate, which means no
production scrap or defect, no breakdown, no accident, no waste in the
process running or changeover. Some of the major TPM goals are:
[14, 15, 16].
 Improving Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE).
 Improving maintenance efficiency and effectiveness by involving
operators in daily maintenance to achieve autonomous maintenance.
 Educating and training personnel: through involving everyone in
the company.
 Designing and managing equipment for maintenance prevention as
the suggestions of operators and maintenance technicians may help
engineering design to specify and procure more effective
equipment.

10
 Chapter Two

The benefits gained from the implementation of TPM can be

classified and organized into direct and indirect benefits as shown in
Table (2.1).

Table (2.1) Direct and Indirect Benefits of TPM [7, 17, 18]
Direct Benefits Indirect Benefits
 Reduction in breakdowns by (65-78) %.  Higher confidence level among the
 Reduction in defects and rework by (65- employees.
80) %.
 Reduction in the manufacturing and  Clean, neat and attractive work place.
maintenance cost (18-45) %.
 Delivering the right quantity at the right
time, in the required quality).
 Reduction in accidents by (90-98) %.  Favorable change in the attitude of the
 Reduction in energy costs by (8-27) %. operators and increase in employee
suggestions by (32-65) %.
 Reduction in customer complaints by  Enhancing job satisfaction by creating
(50-75) %. a pleasant work environment and a
 Increase in productivity and OEE better employees’ involvement
(Overall Equipment Effectiveness) by (sharing knowledge and skills through
(14-45) %. team working).

2.4 TPM Pillars

TPM is basically premised on eight stands and frequently
named the pillars or components of TΡM as proposed by “Japan
Institute of Ρlant Maintenance” (JIPM). Each pillar has its own area of
responsibility. These pillars are; Autonomous Maintenance; Kaizen;
5S; Planned Maintenance; Quality Maintenance; Training; Office
TPM; and Safety Health and Environment (SHE) [19, 20] as shown in
Fig. (2.1).

11
 Chapter Two

Fig. (2.1) Eight Pillars of TPM [1]

2.4.1 5Ss
5Ss is a Japanese foundation pillar of TPM including Seiri (sort,
organization), Seiton (set in order), Seiso (shine, cleaning), Seiketsu
(standardize the cleaning), and Shitsuke (sustain, discipline) and
referred to as the five keys to a total quality environment. 5Ss is a
systematic method to reduce waste and optimize productivity and
quality throughout maintaining an orderly workplace and using visual
signals to achieve more consistent operational results. 5Ss are used to
organize, order, clean, standardize the workplace and keep it that way
to achieve a serene environment in the work place involving the
employees with a commitment to sincerely implement and practice
housekeeping behavior. Cleaning and organizing the workplace helps
the team to uncover problems, making problems visible is the first
step of improvement. If 5Ss method is not taken up seriously, this will

12
 Chapter Two

lead to 5D (Delay, Defect, Dissatisfied customers, Declining profit,

and Demoralized employees) [22, 23], Fig. (2.2) shows the 5Ss.

Fig. (2.2) 5Ss Method [21]

2.4.2 Autonomous Maintenance (AM)

It is a comparative activity involving all operators, maintenance
and engineering personnel in maintaining and improving the
performance of equipments. This pillar aims to make the operator
taking care of routine maintenance tasks which will help to free the
core maintenance personnel in directing their effort towards
maintenance activities. Autonomous maintenance activities aim at
inhibiting equipment deterioration and detecting problems.
Corrections should be taken when failure occurs. Some of these
problems can be easily corrected by the operator, such as cleaning and

13
 Chapter Two

lubrication, whereas more difficult problem can be fixed only by a

skilled operator. The operators employ small maintenance activities
that may avoid the equipment’s from decline [13, 14].
If the operators are trained to carry out these basic activities,
that will raise their skill degree, give them additional responsibility for
the operation of the tool, increases their job prospects, and frees up the
technicians to work on extra complex activities.
Adopting “clean and inspect” procedures, may teach them how
to recognize abnormal operation and identify problems. Over time, as
the operators’ skill increases, the AM teams will progress to further
complex maintenance and ensure optimum machines availability [24,
25].
AM could be implemented gradually in seven well-defined
steps as described in Table (2-2). These seven steps are taken over an
agreed and achievable time span.
The benefits realized from AM are; [26].
a- The operators experience a sense of pride and ownership of their
machines.
b- Safer and easier to work around machines and work areas.
c- Reducing breakdowns, defects and other losses.
d- Reducing cost of doing the job.

14
 Chapter Two

Table (2.2) Autonomous Maintenance Steps [25, 26]

Steps Activities

 Extractive cleaning of dust and dirt.

1- Initial cleaning.
 Main focus on lubrication system.

 Eliminating causes of
2- Carrying outer – measures the
contamination by dust, dirt, etc.
source of the problem.
 Optimization of accessibility.

 Development of behavioral
3- Developing and implementing standards which quickly assure
cleaning and lubrication standards. continues cleaning, greasing and
adjusting of machine parts.
 Instruction and training in
inspection capabilities.
4- General inspection routines.
 Identification and elimination of
minor abnormalities.
 Production and appliance of
5- Autonomous inspection. control.
 Sheets for Autonomous inspection.
 Standardization of logistics, data
6- Organization and tidiness. recording, process quality, molds
and tools.

 Continuous improvement of
7- Full autonomous maintenance.
machines.

2.4.3 KAІZEN
“Kai” is intended change, and “Zen” is intended good (towards
improvement), principally kaizen is introduced for minor
developments, but handled on continuous origin and should include
entire persons in the institute. Kaizen pillar is practice concept of zero
losses in every activity to achieve cost reduction target in all
resources, improve overall plant equipment effectiveness and focus on
easy handling of operators. Kaizen requires no or little investment

15
 Chapter Two

through very large number of small improvements is more effective in

an organizational environment than few improvements of large value.
This pillar is intended to reduce losses in the workshop which
affect efficiency using kaizen tools. Kaizen improving actions are not
restricted to production areas but can also be applied in administrative
areas as well.
Tools used in Kaizen pillar are: Why-Why analysis, poka-Yoke (is
Japanese term means ‘mistake proofing’ or error prevention) [27].

2.4.4 Planned Maintenance

It can be defined as actions performed on a time or machine run
based schedule that detects, prevents or reduce degradation of
component or system. Planned maintenance means raising output (no
failures, no defects) and backing production. In order to produce
products at the required quantity and quality level, maintenance
should insure equipment availability [1, 14]. Planned maintenance
aiming for:
a- Having trouble free machines and equipment to produce defect
free products that satisfy customer’s requirement.
b- Achieving and sustaining machines availability, reduces spare
parts inventory and improves maintainability and reliability of
machines.
c- Searching for underlying causes of equipment problems to identify
and implement root-cause solutions.
d- Reducing maintenance cost.
Basic activities carried out by planned maintenance are; [22, 24].

16
 Chapter Two

 Supporting and guidance to AM by planning efficient and effective

preventive, predictive and time based maintenance over equipment
life cycle.
 Establishing planned maintenance check sheets.
 Increase Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF), Reduce Mean
Time to Repair (MTTR). MTBF is the average time that the system
or component functions between breakdowns. MTTR is the
average time required to troubleshoot and fix failed equipment and
get it back to its normal operating conditions.
 Lubricating.
 Cleaning of workplace, machines, tools etc.
 Inspecting.

2.4.5 Quality Maintenance

This pillar utilizes cross-functional teams to analyze areas of
equipment performance where the product variation should be
reduced. Once a cause has been found, the team would investigate if a
modification or an upgrade might be implemented to increase yield.
Quality Maintenance is defined by JІΡM as; “activities that are
to set equipment conditions that preclude quality defects, based on the
basic concept of maintaining perfect equipment to maintain perfect
quality of products” [5]. The aim of quality maintenance is to produce
non-defective products so as to maintain the product quality through
removing nonconformance in order to satisfy customer demand [6].
Quality Maintenance can be accomplished by: [24, 25].
a- Chasing and addressing equipment problem and reasons, and.
b- Setting the 3Ms (Man, Machine and Material) conditions and
measured in time series to verify their values.

17
 Chapter Two

2.4.6 Training
Training is an integral part of TΡM, operators and maintenance
workers training help to eliminate breakdowns that occurred due to
unavailability of skill. Training will allow operators to maintain their
machines and recognize failure occurrence and they may propose
methods to avoid the failure from happening again. The JIPM
encapsulates the ability that is necessary from the operator and the
maintenance workers as summarized in Table (2.3); [28].

Table (2.3) Required Ability from operator and maintenance workers [24]

18
 Chapter Two

2.4.7 Office ƮPM

Office TPM pillar should learn and promote the strategy of the
organization to make an efficient working office that improves
productivity and eliminates losses. Office TPM aims to make the
production system effective throughout the entire structural activities.
It must deliver required support for production actions and other
sections in order to decrease cost, building up competitive control and
improve the synergy between various business functions.
The effective administration impetus is to create effective
administrative processes by focusing on addressing cost-related
issues, waste and also developing a work process that can handle
changes [12, 14].

2.4.8 Safety, Health and Environment (SHE)

This pillar concentrates on creating a harmless workshop and a
close area that is not hurt by procedures or processes. The basic
concept of “safety, health and environment” is to reduce the amount
of damages, condition problems and damages to the location. SHE
pillar has a crucial role in the other pillars that reports workplace
institute and discipline, regular checkups and servicing, and
standardization of work procedures.
SHE targets are; “zero accident, zero health damage, and zero
fires”. These targets could be achieved by providing appropriate, safe
working environment and following standard operating procedures.
Awareness related to safety is necessary among employees to be
educated and trained about safety slogans, quiz, drama, posters etc.
that could be performed at regular intervals [25].

19
 Chapter Two

2.5 Comparison of JIT, TQM and TPM

TPM strategy originated from Japan to support its lean
manufacturing system, since reliable and operative equipment are
crucial pre-requısite for applying lean manufacturing system in
establishments. Fig (2.3) shows the associations between TPM and
lean manufacturing structure.
TPM is the corner stone activity for most of the lean
manufacturing strategies and can effectively contribute towards
success of lean manufacturing. 5S’s and Kaizen were the foundations
of JIT, TQM, and TPM, whereas Poka-yoke and preventive
maintenance are the basics of JIT and TPM. Kanban seemed to be the
key of JIT whereas visual control is essential for TPM. Lastly, QC
tools are the vital tools for TQM. [29].

Fig. (2.3) Relationships between TPM and Lean

Manufacturing Building Blocks [29]

20
 Chapter Two

The factors supporting JIT, TQM, and TPM are quite similar.
They are administrator deployment, team employment, and employee
involvement. JIT extends the supporting factors to JIT flow and pull
system whereas TQM does education and TPM does maintenance
activities. There are seven Wastes in JIT, which are waste from
overproduction, waste of waiting time, transportation waste, inventory
waste, waste of motion, waste from product defects and waste of over
processing [30].
The main objectives of JIT, TQM, and TPM, which are quite similar,
are cost reduction and quality enhancement. Table (2.4) shows the
similarities and differences among JIT, TQM, and TPM [29].
Table (2.4) Comparison among JIT, TQM, and TPM
Characteristic JIT TQM TPM
-Zero inventory.
-Cost down and quality -Increase machine
-Lead time reduction.
Objective improvement. efficiency
-Defective rate
reduction.
-Machine and
Focus Operator Management Machine management
operator management
7 Wastes:
- Overproduction.
- Waiting time.
-Defects. -Machine breakdown.
- Transportation.
Waste -Inventory. -Set up time.
- Inventory.
-Defects.
- Motion.
- Product defects.
- Over processing.
-Multi skilled -Self-maintenance
-Educated workers.
workers. workers.
Employees -Employee
-Employee -Employee
involvement.
involvement. involvement.

21
 Chapter Two

2.6 TPM Tools/ Metrics

There are a number of tools that are used in TPM evaluation
and selection of the right tool depends on the available requirements
of implementation. These tools are used to analyze, discover losses
and check the performance of the machines to propose solutions for
the effectiveness problems.
TPM uses the following tools/ Metrics to analyze and solve the
equipment and process related problems: Overall Equipment
Effectiveness (OEE), Overall Plant Efficiency (OPE), Overall
Resource Effectiveness (ORE), Single Minute Exchange Die
(SMED), Pareto Analysis, Statistical Process Control SΡC – Control
Charts, etc. problem solving techniques; Brainstorming, Cause and
Effect Diagrams and 5-M Approach. Team based problem solving;
Poka-Yoke Systems, Setup Time Reduction, Bottleneck Analysis,
Recognition and Reward Program and Simulation [1, 24].

2.6.1 Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE)

OEE is a quantitative tool that measures the performance of
production system; it is the core tool for measuring the success of
TPM implementation. Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE)
quantifies how well a manufacturing unit performs relative to its
designed capacity [7] OEE has the standards of 90% in availability,
95% in performance rate and 99% in quality rate. An overall 85%
benchmark OEE is considered as world-class performance [1, 2, 34].
OEE tool proposes a first point for enhancing quantitative
variables for involved maintenance measurement to corporate strategy
and can be used as a reliabılity indicator for production system.
Examining OEE factors can reveal the biggest success boundaries.

22
 Chapter Two

Creating cross-functional crews for solving the root reasons/problems

can initiate great developments and create real bottom-line earnings.
OEE is a productivity development process that begins with
management mindfulness of total productive manufacturing and their
promise to focus on the factory work force in training in teamwork
and cross-functional equipment problem solving [16, 24].
OEE is intended by gaining the availability of the equipment,
performance rate process efficiency and quality rate [16]. OEE can be
used as a benchmark for matching the initial and enhanced
performance of a manufacturing plant, thus quantifying the level of
improvement made [31]. The six big losses, which are counted
significant in dropping the production system efficiency, are;
equipment failure/breakdown, setup and adjustment, idling and minor
stoppage, reduced speed, defect and rework, and start-up losses [7,
24]. The calculation of OEE considering the impact of the six major
losses in production system is shown in Fig. (2.4).

OEE is calculated according to the following equations [32, 33]:

–
Availability 100% (2-1)

Required availability= Time of production to operate the equipment –

planned downtime like breaks, meetings (2-2)

/
Performance rate 100% (2-3)

Operating Time = [Planned downtime + total working time] (2-4)

–
Quality rate (2-5)

OEE = Availability Performance Rate Quality Rate (2-6)

23
 Chapter Two

Fig. (2.4) OEE based on six major production losses [1]

2.6.2 Overall Resource Effectiveness (ORE)

Applying OEE in manufacturing environment became clear that
it is not only equipment’s that contribute to operational losses, but
other resources and systems may cause losses.
Overall Resource Effectiveness (ORE) “is the measure of overall
effective time of the manufacturing system resources”. It is used to
classify the present situation of manufacturing system and for
benchmarking the manufacturing effectiveness with the world class
standard. ORE will be greatly supportive to the decision makers for
additional analysis and frequently enhancing of performance
resources.

24
 Chapter Two

Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE) is adjusted as “Overall

Resource Effectiveness” (ORE) meanwhile it reports the losses related
with the resources (man, machine, material, method) separately.
Inclusion of these new factors enables additional exhaustive and
stratified classification of the resource losses [36, 37]. Classification
of losses is shown in Table (2.5).
Table (2.5) Classifications of ORE Losses [36]

OEE elements do not offer the planned production time losses

in isolated factor while readiness in ORE offers the losses on
explanation of planned production time. OEE displays mostly the
uptime of machine, but ORE reflects the whole facility like machines,
tools, jigs and fixtures, gauges and instruments. ORE reveals the
stratified lost time of set-up and adjustments which could be enhanced
by using SMED (“Single Minute Exchange of Dies”) theory. Many

25
 Chapter Two

companies are facing materials and parts absences like spare parts
[36].
Overall Resource Effectiveness (ORE) is the level of
effectiveness in which uses all the resources, equipment, operators,
technicians, floor management, and support systems [35].
ORE is calculated according to equation (2-7) below and the seven
ORE factors are; [36, 37];-
ORE = R × Af × Am × Amp × P × Q × C (2-7)
2.6.2.1 Readiness (R)
Readiness (R) factor “is related with the total time that the
system is not ready for operation because of planned downtime due to
preparatory/ planned activities”. Readiness indicates the ratio of
planned production time to the total time available.
Planned downtime includes; preliminary effort like cleaning, checkup
of machine, initial part inspection, lubrication, tightening, data
collection and updating meeting, audit, operator training. Readiness
could be calculated according equations below: [36]; -

Readiness R (2-8)

Where;

Planned Production Time = (Total Time – Planned Downtime) (2-9)

2.6.2.2 Availability of facility (Af)

The Availability of facility (Af) “is related with the total time
that the system is not operating due to down time of facilities”. It is a
measure that specifies the ratio of loading time to the planned
production time. The facility downtime also called breakdown time
which includes; downtime of machine and its accessories, non-
availability of tools, jigs and fixtures and non-availability of gauges

26
 Chapter Two

and instruments, test rigs related to facility where it could be

calculated according to equations below; [37] ;-

Availability of Facility Af (2-10)

Where;

Loading Time = (Planned Production Time – Facilities Downtime) (2-11)

2.6.2.3 Changeover Efficiency (C)

The Changeover Efficiency (C) “is concerned with the total
time that the system is not operating because of set-up and
adjustments”. It specifies the ratio of operation time to the loading
time as shown in equation (2.12). Set-up and adjustments include;
changeover time of tools, dies, jigs and fixtures and minor
adjustments after the changeover which could be calculated using
equations below; [36, 37]

Changeover efficiency (C) = (2-12)

Where;
Operation time = Loading time - Setup and adjustments (2-13)
2.6.2.4 Availability of material (Am)
In manufacturing systems, occasionally, raw materials,
components and sub-assemblies are not available causing shortage of
materials. The availability of material (Am) measure is related with
the total time that the system is not operating due to material. Material
shortage include; non-availability of raw materials, consumables,
parts and sub-assemblies and non-availability of Work In Process
(WIP). Availability of material addresses the material shortage
separately to initiate action on the external and internal suppliers. Am
is calculated as shown below; [36, 37];-

Availability of Materials (A) = (2-14)

27
 Chapter Two

Where;
Running Time = Operating Time – Materials Shortages (2-15)
2.6.2.5 Availability of manpower (Amp)
The operator(s) may not exist at work center due to absence,
discussions, etc. The Availability of manpower (Amp) is the total
time that the system is not operating because of manpower absence
which includes; permission, leave and absenteeism, discussion with
supervisor, team leader and medical related issues. These could be
measured to find the actual running time as shown in equations below;
[36, 37];-

Availability of Manpower (Amp) = (2-16)

Where;
Actual Running Time= Running Time– Manpower absence
Time (2-17)
2.6.2.6 Performance Efficiency (P)
Performance efficiency measures speed losses that include any
factors which cause the process to operate at less than its maximum
possible operating speed [34].
2.6.2.7 Quality rate (Q)
Quality rate takes into account quality loss that produces
products which doesn’t meet quality standards including rework
products [35]. Both of the performance and quality factors are
calculated using the same equations of the OEE tool as shown
previously in equations (2-3) and (2-5).

28
 Chapter Two

2.7 TPM Implementation Phases

TPM could be implemented in every organization (production,
health, management, service, etc.) depending on the size, type, people,
effort, management and the way of implementation. Some
organizations may not implement all TPM pillars but only specific
pillars depending on the available requirements of implementation.
The choice of the tool used in TPM implementation is selected
depending on many factors that could give the required results. The
evaluation of overall effectiveness before and after TPM
implementation is important to check the progress of the result. Five
phases are required to implement TPM which are shown in Fig. (2.6)
[4, 39];

Phase 1 Awareness

Phase 2: Organization

Phase 3: Planning

Phase 4: Implementation

Continuous Phase 5: Assessment

Improvements

Fig. (2.6) TPM Implementation Phases [18]

29
 Chapter Two

2.7.1 Awareness Phase

The objective of this phase is to present TPM strategy and basic
ideologies to the team management and get their promise and support
for the TPM activities. It aims to increase machines knowledge and
find problems which have not been found before. TPM awareness
program includes the following activities [3, 7];-
 Unwanted things and equipment are eliminated.
 Overall cleaning is achieved to eliminate dirt and dust
 Joining meetings, workshops and discussions on TPM and making a
library of TPM books.
 Literatures visiting companies which applied TPM, requesting
consultants and TPM specialists to lecture in the facility arranging
and supplying an in-house introductory course on TPM to the
management crew.
 Careful grouping of senior equipment, process engineers assessing
the current status of the equipment management system, holding
staff discussions to detect problems and brainstorming potential
clarifications.
2.7.2 Organization Phase
The goal of this phase is to generate an organizational structure
that promotes, plans, implements, and supports TPM at all levels in
the organization. At this phase all the causes of infection, dirt and oil,
are removed. The places which are hard to clean and examine are
rearranged or re-assembled to allow access [39].
2.7.3 Planning Phase
In order to implement this phase, equipment’s conditions
should be dependable and the operating conditions are consistent.

30
 Chapter Two

Equipment life span can be accurately estimated, mechanics and

operators can plan periodic inspections and renovations.
This phase begins to determine the best type and interval of
inspections and repairs. Decisions are made frequently in
organizations that establish a preventive maintenance program. In
addition, operators should be trained on the cause-and-effect
relationship between the process and product quality.
Then, on-line tracking of process characteristics allow the
operators to detect equipment’s deterioration before it creates product-
quality problems. This phase presents standards for cleaning, oiling
and maintenance to make sure that the cleaning is achieved
successfully. Problem areas are investigated to identify the areas
where lubrication is ineffective. The process will also be documented
for auditing purposes, and monitor the situation before and after
cleaning [4, 39].
2.7.4 Implementation Phase
In order to offer the organization with hands-on knowledge,
TPM council decides to initiate an implementation process throughout
TPM pilot team. This is a single team working on, perhaps a single
machine and completing all TPM activities to improve its
performance. Pilot team has to develop the right way to get things
done in its own organization. The main criteria used for selecting
equipment suitable for the pilot TPM strategy are [4, 20];-
 Importance to the customers.
 Capacity constraints.
 Great breakdown frequency.
 Pretty new no backup system in place level of difficulty reliable with
the rest of the production line high visibility within the organization.

31
 Chapter Two

The skill acquired through the pilot project can be used to

adjust the planning process and define resources required for TPM
employment.
In addition, correct selection of equipment and team members in the
pilot project can result in significant development in equipment
performance within a relatively short period of time. At this phase the
personnel training and advisement in basic controlling functions of
machines will be done to make sure that employees have the ability in
performing easy maintenance tasks and they are aware about machine
functions that they are working with [39].
2.7.5 Assessment Phase
This phase amounts to the standards and learning attained by
training at the third and fourth phases of implementation and it’s the
time for operator to start implementing basic examination and
maintenance tasks autonomously. The objectives of the assessment
system are [4];-
 Authenticate the evolution made in TPM improvement activities
against exact oak.
 Calculate the level of TPM maturity in the organization.
 Explain areas of strength and weakness in the implementation
process.
 Integrate TPM improvement projects in the organization’s business
plan.
 Assess institute readiness to apply for a Plant Maintenance award.

At this phase results will be compared with those of earlier

stages and document the achievements of TPM strategy [4, 39]. TPM
strategy works using the concept of “I operate and I fix” that is shown
in Fig. (2.7), and neglecting the concept of “I operate and you fix”.

32
 Chapter Two

That’s because this concept invites external maintenance staff to bring

the machine back to its operative condition [39, 40].

Fig. (2.7) I operate and I fix flow chart [40]

2.8 Challenges and Success factors of TPM Implementation

Many challenges are faced in TPM implementation and one of
these challenges is that there is no quick way for implementing TPM
and the period of starting to implement TPM till the appearance of
improvement may last for one to three years depending on certain
factors such as: the size of the organization, type of production
system, people, effort, management and the way of implementation.
Some organizations may not be implementing all the pillars of TPM
and the choice of the rated tool depends on many factors [41].
Challenges that may be faced in TPM implementation are: [42, 43].
 Difficulty in understanding the linkages between the eight pillars.

33
 Chapter Two

 No sufficient resources (people, money, time, etc.) and assistance

provided.
 Lack of management support and understanding of the strategy.
 Lack of sufficient training.
 Lack of structure and relationship to strategic needs.
 Lack of necessary mixture of skills and experienced in TPM team.
 Typically, people show strong resistance to change.

TPM is basically an occasion of the shared focus on making

better use of available resources. There are various key success factors
to achieve a successful TPM implementation such as; [40, 43].
 Leadership and financial support.
 Training and education of employees.
 Planning for implementation phases.
 Rewards for encouraging employees, and
 Teamwork and culture change.
2.9 Literature Survey
TPM applications encompass a wide range of areas such as;
manufacturing and process industries, health, environment, food
industry and other services. Some researchers implemented all of
TPM pillars and others focused on application of one or more of TPM
tools.

Bergsman, J, and A. Häll implemented office TPM at

AstraZeneca. Sweden Operations [Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient
(API)] to examine how to improve their maintenance management
and increase maintenance efficiency. Mean Time Between failure
(MTBF) and Technical Availability (TA) are used as tools for TPM.

34
 Chapter Two

Result revealed improvements in; maintenance efficiency, operational

routines for planning of maintenance activities, work order system,
planning and routines for condition control, maintenance key
measurements and daily planning [2].

Lemma E. proposed total productive maintenance in KK textile

industry PLC in Ethiopia. All the pillars of TPM are implemented.
OEE metric is used to evaluate the existing poor equipment efficiency
which is equal to (27%). Their existing maintenance programs in the
company include; breakdown and preventative maintenance. The
researcher used software that combines Visual Basic with Microsoft
Access. After six months of implementation he registered limited
progress in 5S and office TPM pillars [6].

Almeanazel, O.T.R reviewed TPM and evaluated the existing

equipment performance in Steel Company at Jordan that works using
continuous production system. The data that was collected during
fifteen working days for two shifts are evaluated using OEE. Results
showed that the company achieved (55%) of existing OEE. Set of
techniques like SMED, production planning and computer
maintenance management system was suggested for the industry after
calculating OEE to improve their maintenance and improve the
productivity [7].

Auvinen, I. implemented two pillars of TPM in metal working

company in Germany to change the Kennametal Logistics distribution
center to be more efficient, productive, clean and safer to work. The
company used random orientated storage system. By implementing
5Ss and SHE pillars the warehouse became more organized, the

35
 Chapter Two

cleaning standards was established and he clarified problems which

needed to be replaced or fixed [11].

Eswaramurthi, K. G. and Venkatachalam P. M. evaluated

Overall Resource Effectiveness (ORE) including readiness,
availability of material changeover efficiency and availability of
manpower in a manufacturing line at India. Their case study presented
to evaluate the ORE in manufacturing line during four months. As a
result, after three months for the evaluation they found that (53%) in
ORE was achieved [12].

Zhu J., and Liu Y. planned and autonomous maintenance

pillars of TPM was implemented. OEE tool was used to prevail the
effect of introducing TPM into the production line at ABC subsidiary
company in China. The findings of their study indicate that TPM was
not only leads to increase in efficiency and effectiveness of
manufacturing equipment’s but also helps organization to
significantly improve people morale and working environment, where
OEE was increased by (22%) after 5 months of implementation [19].

Gosavi, A., et al developed planned maintenance pillar to

reduce maintenance costs. They used two statistical tools based on
well-known stochastic models for TPM implementation. The first tool
based on renewal theory; the second one based on Semi-Markov
Decision Processes (SMDPs) theory. Their results showed minimizing
long-run average cost and reducing in the frequency of costs that
exceed the budget [20].

36
 Chapter Two

Singh, J. et al implemented TPM at automobile industry in

India. Four TPM pillars are employed in the research are; 5S,
autonomous maintenance, Kaizen; planned maintenance. OEE is
employed and results at the company showed (58.7%) value but after
one year of TPM implementation it was shown a progress until OEE
became (70%) value. This indicates increasing in equipment
availability, decrease in defectives and rework and increase in
performance rate [21].

Mukaddes, A. M et al implemented only KaiZen pillar of

TPM at Bangladeshi garments factory that produces ready-made
garments through continuous production, they employed different
tools as OEE, why - why analysis, summary of losses, kaizen register
and kaizen summary sheet. They found that OEE has increased from
(59%) to (65%) by reducing only the stoppages losses [25].

Nilmani S. and Sridhar K. implemented all TPM pillars in a

cylinder liner manufacturing firm in India and used Overall
Equipment Effectiveness (OEE). Their OEE results are increased
from (46%) to (61%) after 2 years of TPM implementation and with
these results they aim to improved towards world class OEE value of
(85% - 90%) throughout increasing in equipment availability, increase
in performance and quality rates [44].

Iftekhar A., et al implemented TPM in the manufacturing

company at Bangladesh. TPM tools used are; Mean Time between
Failure (MTBF) and Mean Time to Repair (MTTR). They also used
daily, weekly and monthly maintenance check lists. Four pillars
executed are; Autonomous Maintenance, KaiZen, Planned

37
 Chapter Two

Maintenance, Education and Training pillars. They reported that after

one year of implementation significate improvements were observed
in; reduction in time loss by (50%), increase in availability by (13%),
increase in MTBF period and reduction in MTTR [45].

Kumar, P., et al developed an empirical study about high end

printing press machines and packaging machines in manufacturing in
Manipal Shivally Industrial Area. Overall equipment efficiency and
total productivity are calculated for four machines during ten shifts.
As a result, the average OEE values for these machines were found to
locate between the ranges of (15%) to (60%) and for the total
productivity that varies between (9%) and (34%). The results
highlight the major causes of downtime and decrease in the
productivity [47].

Kocher, G., et al investigated the contribution of total

productive maintenance initiatives to manufacturing industries in
India. The study is carried out in case company Leader Valves Ltd. at
India. They initiated TPM strategy to discover the factors affecting the
successful implementation in the company. Over eight months’
period, Results obtained from of availability, performance and quality
are (95%), (33%) and (99%) respectively while the OEE is (31%).
They reported that the performance efficiency is the major factor that
affects OEE value [48].

Dogra, M., et al implemented four pillars of TPM in cold

rolling plant in India. These pillars are; Planned Maintenance,
Autonomous Maintenance, Kaizen and Education and Training). OEE
tool is used to detect the main equipment’s bottlenecks. After 18-20

38
 Chapter Two

months of implementation the company achieved (83.95%) in OEE.

They claimed that successful implementation of TPM needs two years
or more of effective time. They reported that TPM implementation
provided better communication among the different departments at all
levels that led to an increase in team working spirit among the
employees and healthy organizational environment [50].

Boussard, P. K., and Safonovs, J. Q. implemented total

productive maintenance in process industry at Borealis Stenungsund.
Their research provides tools for enhancing visualization and planning
such as OEE and SMED. Applying value stream mapping method
revealed significant improvement in production downtime, safety,
health, environment and quality. CMMS is also used in the research.
After TPM implementation the company got a (30%) decrease in
production downtime during similar maintenance activities [51].

Haddad, T. H., and Jaaron, A. A. implemented TPM at

healthcare center in Palestine to increase medical devices utilization
and decrease their failures. Autonomous Maintenance (AM).
Preventive Maintenance (PM) and 5S pillars are used in their study.
As a result, employees have opportunities to develop their working
skills in handling a wide range of challenging demands on daily basis,
also the ability of employees to control the work and decide the way
to handle and receive information are key factors that led to improve
productivity and service quality [52].

Afefy, I. H. focused on studying TPM in Salt Company

(Emisal) in Egypt, using OEE tool for TPM to evaluate the existing
production efficiency during one year of study. They outlined that the

39
 Chapter Two

company achieved about (93%) in quality rate, (87%) in availability

and (87.5%) in performance efficiency [55].

Based on the previous studies four key points can be extracted:

 TPM could be implemented at all industries regardless the volume
of industry.
 Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE) is the most evaluation used
tool because it implicitly includes quality, performance, and
availability.
 It could be implemented only one pillar of TPM or more according
to the problem that needs to be resolved and the available
requirement of implementation. TPM could depend on one
evaluation tool.
 TPM consolidate team work in the organization plays an important
role in TPM success. Management, training awareness of people and
the engagement of operators as well as maintenance team are
important factors that support TPM implementation.
2.10 Research Limitations
 TPM is time consuming; implementation may last for one to three
years to implement TPM totally but results could appear after short
period depending on many factors and limitations.
 There is no single right approach for TPM implementation strategy.
There is a complexity and divergence adopted throughout industry.
There have been many suggested methods by researchers for
implementing TPM in different organizations to achieve
organizational objectives and goals.

40
 Chapter Two

2.11 Proposed TPM Methodology

Fig. (2.8) shows the proposed methodology of implementing TPM,
since implementing TPM requires defining the production big losses in
TPM reveal tools there should be forward/backward information exchange
that could reveal the big losses as well as identifying the relevant pillar(s).

The generated results could be further employed in TPM

implementation plan through the dotted line that shows probability of TPM
implementation for the company. Also the figure shows the probability of
using more than one pillar with other tool than OEE (since it is the most
commonly used tool therefore, it is depicted in bold arrow). This indicates
that other tool(s) could be used according to the researcher’s aspects. This
implementation needs time, money, training and a clear plan of
implementation because TPM could lead the company to the total success
or total failure if it is not managed correctly.

Fig. (2.8) Proposed TPM Methodology

41
 Chapter Two

2.11 Concluding Remarks

1- TPM is a strategic maintenance concept that improves the overall
production of any organization.
2- The big goal of TPM is to reduce the six big losses in the
production and to operate equipment according to its designed
capability.
3- Different tools are used to analyze, discover losses and check the
performance of the machines to propose solutions for the
effectiveness problems.
4- TPM could be implemented according to five phases using TPM
pillars and appropriate tools to evaluate the existing and improved
results.
5- Office TPM plays crucial role in providing the required support for
production activities and other departments and improve the
synergy between various business functions.

42
 Chapter Three

Case Study: Application of The Proposed

Methodology
3.1 Introduction
Baghdad Company for Soft Drinks was established at 1989
with a capital investment of 70 Million Iraqi Dinars. The company
produces different flavors of soft drinks according to the
specifications of International PepsiCo Inc. The products are
produced in different types and volumes packed in plastic, glass or
cans depending on production line type and the market need. There
are eight production lines in this company in (Al- Forat and Dijlah
factories). Baghdad Company covers 85% of local market needs, see
Appendix C. The production is continuous and the company imports
raw materials from certain companies from inside and outside Iraq
according to International PepsiCo Inc. specifications requirements.
The raw materials include; chemical components, flavors, containers,
CO2, cans …etc. The company works in two shifts a day during 24
hours, 12 hour for each shift during seven days a week. Products
volumes are; 250ml, 355ml, 750ml, 2.25L and 1.75L [8].

3.2 Production Line No. Five / Al-Forat Factory

There are eight production lines in the company divided into
two factories (Dijla and Al-Forat) each production line has its own
specifications. There are four production lines in Al-Forat factory
(number five produces plastic bottles and the other production lines
produce cans and glass bottles). Production line number five was
established in 2009, designed with max. production of 768000
bottle/day, it is fully automated in all its processes and served
throughout planned maintenance every 5000 operating hour by

44
 Chapter Three

“KRONES” [German Company] throughout contract until year 2021.

This production line is the newest, largest in size and the highest in
productivity.

The production line operates at two speeds (4000 bottle/hr. and

2333 bottle/hr.) depending on the bottle size and the market need. The
fully automated production line consists of the following sequence of
processes that are shown in Table (3.1) and the process flow diagram
for this production line is shown in Fig. (3.1).

As shown in Fig. (3.1), the production line starts with the raw
materials (ampoules) and moves by mechanical conveyer. These
materials are stored beside the blowing machine. After that, the bottles
are moved using air pressure conveyor to reach the filling room; this
room consists of 3 inputs as shown in Fig. (3.1), first input is from the
hot blowing stage, second input is from the mixing machine that feeds
the filling machine according to the flavor type, and bottle top covers
are introduced into the machine through a mechanical conveyer. Then
the first inspection stage will check the filling level by using X-ray
inspection and the defected ones will by pushed away to a container
right away. Different arrows in Fig. (3.1) depict different
transportation media.

45
 Chapter Three

Table (3.1) Detailed production processes of line five / Al-Forat factory

Process Description of the Process / Stage

Ampules are heated by furnace and then extruded
1‐ Hot blowing. using hot pressure air to form the standard required
size of bottles (750ml, 2.25L and 1.75L etc.)

Water is heated to 85C° and circulates with separator

2‐ Mixing.
sieves and mixed with crystal sugar and flavor.

Bottles are washed first and filled, then covered by

3‐ Filling.
bottle’s cap.

Inspection Stage No. one X-ray inspection for the filling level.

Eliminating any wet from outside the bottle to stick the

4‐ Hot air fan blower
labels well.

5‐ Labeling. Bottles are labeled automatically using stickers.

Inspection Stage No. two Checking the alignment of the stickers X-ray.
Bottles are arranged and each 6 bottles (set) are
6‐ Automatic all‐round
covered by Nylon bag and passed to a hot air station
packer.
that will shrink the nylon to form a unique package set.

Inspection Stage No.

Packages are inspected using X-ray.
three

7‐ Fully‐automatic At this stage, each 18 set package are arranged and

grouping station. moved to the other stage.

8‐ Single‐column A robot will separate previous 18 packages from the

palletizing robot. next 18 package that will come over it.
This is the final step that surrounds a package of 4
rows, each row consists of 18 packages by Nylon and
9‐ Final packaging.
shrike it. After that it’s moved by fork lift to the
temporary storage area.

46
 Chapter Three

Fig. (3.1) Flow Diagram for Production Line No. Five/ Al-Forat Factory

47
 Chapter Three

The bottles are passed to a hot air fan blower in order to be

labeled in the next process; the labels are changed according to the
type of product. Then the bottles passed to the second stage of
inspection to check the alignment of the sticker by using X-ray
inspection. The bottles will be pocketed and inspected. For more
clarification about the production line diagram Fig. (3.2) shows the
types of production line machines in 3D.

Fig. (3.2) Production Line Machines in 3D

KRONES is the company that manufactures these machines.
Each one of the KRONES machines in the production line consists of
a control panel that controls the activities of the machines by
Programmable Logic Control (PLC) units. This control panel will
notify the operator if any problem happened through an alarm which
is colored in yellow (if it is non-critical fault) and red (if is critical
fault) in order to enable the operator to take any necessary possible
action, Appendix A shows this control panel.

48
 Chapter Three

3.3 Analysis of Maintenance Activities for Production Line

Five
This line is served by Iraqi maintenance staff (eight persons) in
each shift that employs maintenance for the production line after
machine failure (Breakdown Maintenance). Implementation of
planned maintenance by KRONES Company takes about three weeks
to maintain and check and restart the machines after maintenance
completion. Throughout this research, two planned maintenances
were accomplished, the first one has been done in March 2015
according to the company request in spite of that the production line
didn’t reach the 5000 operating hours since last planned maintenance
in December 2014. The time line for implementing planned
maintenance in March 2015 is shown in Fig. (3.3) in detailed
activities.

4 Days Overall check for production line *

7 Days Changing all the defective parts of the machines

Activity

4 Days Lubrications, changing oil and filters *

Setting up the machines and test them 6 Days

Time
(Days)

Jan,00
Feb.28 Jan,05
Mar.05 Jan,10
Mar.10 Jan,15
Mar.15 Jan,20
Mar.20 Jan,25
Mar.25
2015

Fig. (3.3) Detailed Planned Maintenance Activities Time Line

49
 Chapter Three

In the previous figure, all maintenance activities are done by

expert German staff to make an overhaul of all the production line.
The activities noted by star symbol are those kinds of activities that
could be done by Iraqi staff and will be discussed later in chapter four.
3.4 Production Line No. Five Breakdowns
Data are collected along two years in 2014 and 2015
respectively. Although the production lines are new; but a lot of
stoppages and losses occurred in these lines. The company [8]
claimed that production line number five in (Al-Forat factory) is
facing the highest stoppages and losses.

In spite of that the data are collected for the years 2014 and
2015 for this study but, the production line breakdowns are classified
throughout 2015 only. The production line suffers from many
breakdowns. These breakdowns vary where Pareto chart will clarify
each type as shown in Fig. (3.4);

350 321 100.0

90.0
300
80.0
245
250 70.0

186 60.0
200
167
50.0
150
118 40.0
93 30.0
100
20.0
50
10.0
0 0.0
Mechanical Measurments Material Manpower Methods Others

Frequency of Failure Cumulative percent

Fig. (3.4) Pareto Chart for production line breakdowns (Jan - May 2015)

50
 Chapter Three

From the previous Fig. it could be noticed that 50% of the

failures are due to mechanical and measurements causes.

3.4 Concluding Remarks

Based on the analysis of production line five and as it has been
mentioned earlier that this line is shut down for planned maintenance
according to the contract with KRONES Company. Therefore, it
could be concluded that planned maintenance is not enough to resolve
breakdowns, and TPM strategy/tools should be introduced to reveal
losses in production so as to improve overall equipment effectiveness
of this production line

51
 Chapter Four

Analysis of Results and Discussion

4.1 Introduction
Each company, organization, production line, etc. in different
areas have requirements that should be cleared and investigated to see
which pillars needs to be implemented and how it can add value.
4.2 Analysis of Production Line Five
Actual production data are collected from the company during
2014 and 2015 for two shifts and both speeds (2333 bottle/hr. and
4000 bottle/hr.) which are shown in Table (4.1).

 The Designed operating time in mentioned table is calculated as;

(24 hr. /day × 30 days / month = 720 hr. /month)
 Planned downtime is the time that the production line is down
because of;
 Cleaning.
 Inspection of machine.
 Lubrication and tightening.
 Changing the product type or changing speed and audit.

53
 Chapter Four

Table (4.1) Production Data during (2014) and (2015) years

Actual Actual
Designed Planned
Breakdown Production Production Defects
Month Operating Downtime
Time (hr.) Time (hr.) Quantity (bottles)
Time (hr.) (hr.)
(bottles/hr.)
January 720 422 109.7 188.3 452837 7510
February 720 250 170 342.3 792392 13380
March 720 295 127.7 297.3 808618 15139
April 720 444 96 180 446309 9277
2014 May 720 343 197 180 1031792 16065
June 720 272 141 307 812994 12882
July 720 381 212 127 890014 17679
August 720 87 206 427 1098452 18984
September 720 113.5 246 360.5 1019091 16271
October 720 233.5 293 193.5 1041701 15013
November 720 189 260 271 753247 11425
December 168 82 39 47 158868 2790
Average 260 175 244 775526 13035

January 720 112 141 467 603869 10269

February 720 87 117 516 743679 14899
March 168 88 25 55 550016 10448
April 720 209 196 315 951767 17883
May 720 295 108 317 406082 8318
June 720 152 187 381 758366 17061
2015 July 720 120 95 505 480314 14271
August 720 113 190 417 867154 23596
September 720 114 96 510 501762 12574
October 720 311 171 238 736183 22339
November 720 192 76 452 177148 5322
December 720 336 16 400 97010 2546
Average 160 118 381 572779 13294

54
 Chapter Four

 Breakdown time is the time that the production line is down because
of failure.
 Actual production time is the time that production line is producing
products.
 Actual production is the amount of defective and non-defective
products.

From Table (4.1) it can be seen that the:

 Designed operating time is fixed at (720 hr. /month) except for
December 2014 and March 2015 which is (168 hr. /month) since
only one week is left before planned maintenance execution.
 Planned downtime value is fluctuating in each month during both
years where the highest planned downtime is in April and the least is
in December 2014 and that’s an indicator that the company does not
have a clear plan for planned stoppages.
 Breakdown time gets increased whenever the actual production
increased until reaching (293hr.) in October 2014 before
implementing planned maintenance in December for the same year.
Then it gets decreased in fluctuating values until April (196 hr.)
which the biggest breakdown time in 2015
 Max. Actual production time is in August (427 hr.) in 2014 and (516
hr.) in February 2015.
 The maximum actual production in both years is in August 2014
(1098452 bottles) which has almost the least planned downtime
value. This clarifies that the planned downtime has a great effect on
the productivity.
Fig. (4.1 A) describes production data during 2015. From this
figure it could be noticed that the actual production quantity
represents (2%) of the designed production quantity (in bottles), and

55
 Chapter Four

the planned is (8%) of the designed quantity. While Fig (4.1 B) shows
the percentage of the actual production times is about (28%).

34560000,
6873348, Production Quantity Production Times
11%
2%
Planned Production Designed OPERATING
for One Year TIME
Average Planned
Designed 381, 28% Downtime
Production for One Average Breackdown
Year 720, 52%
Time
27648000
0, 87% Avarage Production
Average Actual
for One Year
118, 8% Production Time
160, 12%

Fig. (4.1 A) Production Quantity Taxonomy in bottles Fig (4.1 B) Average of Production Times in hours

Fig. (4.1) Production Data During 2015

Bar chart is employed to classify the fluctuations between

planned and breakdown times and also shows the planned
maintenance for years 2014 and 2015 measured by hours as shown in
Figs. (4.2) and (4.3) respectively. It can be seen from Fig. (4.2) the
breakdown times is less than planned downtime for each month until
August 2014 which became greater than planned downtime. And this
problem is still the same in 2015 in spite of the implementation of
planned maintenance.
Figs (4.4) and (4.5) below shows a comparison between the
actual production and the designed operating times for 2014 and 2015
respectively.

56
 Chapter Four

600

550

500

450

400

350

300
Hours

250

200

150

100

50

0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Fig. (4.2) Differences Between Planned and Breakdown Times in 2014

600
550
500
450
400
Hours

350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Fig. (4.3) Differences Between Planned and Breakdown Times in 2015

Planned Downtime Breakdown Time Planned Maintenance

57
 Chapter Four

750
700
650
600
550
500
450
400
350
Hours

300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Fig. (4.4) Differences Between Designed operating and Actual production Times in 2014

750
700
650
600
550
500
Hours

450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Fig. (4.5) Differences Between Designed operating and Actual production Times in 2015

Designed Operating Time Actual Production Time

58
 Chapter Four

Figs (4.6) and (4.7) below show a comparison between the

actual production and defective products for 2014 and 2015
respectively.
 It can be seen in Fig. (4.7) that April 2015 has the maximum
production which is exactly after implementing the planned
maintenance in March and it has the maximum breakdown time for
the same year.
 It can be seen that maximum defective products occurred during
summer season in August for 2014 and 2015 which are (18984
bottles) and (23596 bottles) respectively.
 Annual defective rates are 1.5% in 2014 and 2% in 2015. While the
company defective threshold is 2% annually.
 It should be mentioned that the defective products are increasing
whenever the production speed is increased.

1200000 1098452
1031792 10190911041701
1000000
890014
792392 808618 812994
753247
800000
Bottle

600000
452837 446309

400000

158868
200000

7510 13380 15139 9277 16065 12882 17679 18984 16271 15013 11425 2790
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Actual production (bottles) Defectives (bottles)

Fig. (4.6) Actual Production and Defective Product in 2014

59
 Chapter Four

1200000

1000000 951767
867154

743679 758366 736183

800000
603869
600000 550016
480314 501762
Bottle

406082
400000

177148
200000 97010
10269 14899 10448 17883 8318 17061 14271 23596 12574 22339 5322 2546
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Actual Production (bottles) Defectives (bottles)

Fig. (4.7) Actual Production and Defective Products in 2015

Fig. (4.8) shows defective products categories. During the first

five months of 2015 it was observed that the defectives are largely
happened in the categories that are shown in the figure. From this Fig.
it could be noticed that the highest share of defect is due to hot
blowing process (of an average of 60%) followed by inspection
stages. To more clarify these defectives and how the product is failed,
see Appendix B.

60
 Chapter Four

January February
15% 17%
5% Hot Blowing 11% Hot Blowing
8% Leabiling Leabiling
72% 64%
Packegeing Packegeing
8%
Inspection Inspection

March April
20% 17%
Hot Blowing Hot Blowing
15%
Leabiling Leabiling
56% 54%
15% Packegeing Packegeing
9% Inspection 14% Inspection

May

27% Hot Blowing

45%
Leabiling
Packegeing
16%
Inspection
12%

Fig. (4.8) Categories of Defective Products According to Process (Jan

– May) 2015

4.4 Employing TPM Tools for Production Line Five:

Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE) and Overall Resource
Effectiveness (ORE) have been chosen to evaluate the production line.
OEE has a several factors to measure different kinds of losses in
production, while ORE is used to measure some areas of losses that

61
 Chapter Four

are not covered by OEE to enable decision makers initiating

improvements actions according to the related losses.

4.4.1 OEE Tool for Line Five

The collected data for years (2014) and (2015) are used to
calculate OEE values according to the equations (2-1) to (2-6). The
results are tabulated in Table (4.2) and (4.3) below month by month
according to speed and each factor for the years (2014) and (2015)
respectively.

From Tables (4.2) and (4.3) it can be seen that;

 In 2014 the company was using two operational speeds are;
(4000bottle/hr.) and (2333 bottle/hr.) until March 2015 where they
used only the high speed to increase the productivity due to the
increase in market demand.
 Although the availability is increased from 37% (average value) in
2014 to 40% (average value) in 2015, the OEE average value is
decreased by 2% (from 11% on 2014 to 9% on 2015), while quality
average is constant, that is because performance rate factor.
 Throughout the two years of this study indicate the effect of
performance (decreased from 28% to 22%) noticing that the
production line speed is almost 4000 bottle/hr.
 In conjunction with Fig. (3.3) that shows the completion of planned
maintenance in the first week of April but still there is no observed
raise in performance rate of this production line as seen in Table
(4.3) this supports the previous conclusion that planned maintenance
is not enough for this production line.

62
 Chapter Four

Table (4.2) OEE Values for Production Line Five During 2014
Availability Performance Quality OEE
Month Speed [bottle/hr.]
% % % %
4000 27 14 98 4
Jan.
2333 23 17 97 5.5
4000 40 19 97 7
Feb.
2333 29 33 97 9
4000 31 19 98 5
Mar.
2333 49 43 97 20
4000 18 10.5 97 1
Apr.
2333 43.5 36.5 97 15
4000 41 31.4 98 12.6
May.
2333 31 28.5 98 8
4000 33 23.3 98 7
Jun.
2014 2333 62.3 38.6 97.5 23.4
4000 36 28.2 97.5 9
Jul.
2333 20 15.5 97.5 3
4000 60 45.3 96 26.4
Aug.
2333 56.3 45.6 96 25
4000 48.7 34.5 98 16.4
Sep.
2333 50 40 97.5 19.5
4000 36.7 32 98 11.5
Oct.
2333 36 22 98 7
4000 29.3 24.6 97 6
Nov.
2333 37 29 97 10
4000 26 16 97 4
Dec.
2333 31 23 98 6
Average 37 28 97 11

63
 Chapter Four

Table (4.3) OEE Values for Production Line Five During 2015
Availability Performance Quality OEE
Month Speed [bottle/hr.]
% % % %
4000 38.3 25.3 98 9
Jan.
2333 36 27 97 9
4000 31.2 25 97 7
Feb.
2333 45.6 30.3 97 13
Mar. 4000 23 26.4 98 5
Apr. 4000 39 27 98 10
2015 May. 4000 19.3 14.6 97 2
Jun 4000 32 22 97 7
July 4000 35 21 97 8
Aug. 4000 51 34 97 16
Sep. 4000 56 27 97 14
Oct. 4000 52 18 96 9
Nov. 4000 47 8 97 3
Dec. 4000 60 8 97 4
Average 40 22 97 9

In order to clarify previous data, bar chart is employed to show

OEE factors for year (2014) and (2015) in Figs. (4.9) and (4.10)
respectively.

64
 Chapter Four

100

80

60 55
49
45 45
Percentage

39 38 37
40 34
32 32.5
27.5 29 29 29 29 27 28
26
23 23
20
20 15 16 15

0
Jan. Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Fig. (4.9) OEE Factors in 2014

100

80

60
Percentage

60 56
51 52
47

37 38 39
40 35 34
32
26 27 26.4 27 27
23 22 21
19.3 18
20 14.6
8 8

0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Fig. (4.10) OEE Factors in 2015

Availability Performance Rate Quality Rate

65
 Chapter Four

From these Figures it can be seen that the;

 Quality rate in each month is almost stable which is not less than
96% in each month; that means that the quality rate at the company
is stable (although it is less than PepsiCo Inc. specifications of 99%).
 Availability factor is always higher than performance, but still not
exceeding more than (60%) percentage throughout the two
consecutive years of the study (2014, 2015) of an average value of
(37%) in 2014 and (40%) in 2015.
 Performance rate throughout these two years do not exceed 45%
value. Although this line is working at two different operational
speeds that directly affect performance rate, but this line suffers
from critical performance issues.
 Maximum performance rates are in August 2014 and 2015 which are
(45% and 34%) respectively, knowing that the highest defect rate
was in the same months.

Fig. (4.11) below shows a comparison between OEE values at

two different operational speeds during 2014, so as to analyze the
effect of operational speed on OEE values. Since in 2015 almost this
production line operated at the high speed (4000 bottle/hr.)

66
 Chapter Four

30

25

20
OEE Percentage

15 Operating Speed
4000 bottle/hr.
10 2333 bottle/hr.

2014

Fig. (4.11) OEE for Two Operational Speeds in 2014

From Fig. (4.11) it can be seen that;

 There is an inverse relationship between OEE and operating speed
because almost the OEE values are higher when the line is operating
at low speed.
 In spite of the big fluctuations in data, it can be seen that OEE values
for both speeds are decreasing during the last four months before
executing the planned maintenance in December.
 The fluctuations depend on the number of working days for the
specific speed, size of the product and the planned and breakdown
times.
 In April 2014, the OEE for the speed (4000 bottle/hr.) is 1%, back to
Table (4.1) it’s found that this month has the largest planned
downtime in the year (444 hr.) more than half month.
 The overall linear trend for the high speed shows an incremental
progressive than low speed.

67
 Chapter Four

Since the company used only the high speed starting from
March 2015, a comparison between the high speed in 2014 and 2015
has been made to analyze the fluctuating data as shown in Fig (4.12)
below.

30

25

20
OEE Percentage

15
2014
10 2015

Fig. (4.12) OEE values at high operating speed during (2014) and
(2015) years.

It can be seen from the comparison between the above Fig. and
Fig. (4.11), that OEE values in 2014 for the high speed are greater
than in 2015. On the other hand, Fig. (4.13) shows the total OEE
values for each month in 2014 and 2015.

68
 Chapter Four

30

25
24
20
18
16 16
Percentage

15
14 14
2014
9 9 10 10
10 2015
9 9 9
8
7
5 7 6
5
3.5 5 4
3
2
0

Fig. (4.13) Total OEE during 2014 and 2015

From the figure above it can be seen that;

 The OEE values are decreasing in both years for the last four
months.
 August 2014 has the maximum percentage, while it is the least in
May 2015 in which OEE percent is (2%) noticing that the planned
maintenance activities have been employed in March where
production rate is expected to increase, that means that the company
needs to boost maintenance activities to overcome these low
production values

The availability factor for both years is not acceptable and so as

for the performance factor as compared to the world class percentage.
These two factors have the greatest effect on OEE percentage due to
the losses compared to world class OEE values as shown in Table
(4.4) below

69
 Chapter Four

Table (4-4) Comparison Between OEE World Class and the Resulting
Values for Line Five

Company Company
OEE Factor World Class
OEE for 2014 OEE for 2015
Availability 37% 40% 90%
Performance 28% 22% 95%
Quality 97% 97% 99%
OEE 11% 9% 85%

4.4.2 ORE Tool for Line Five

For detailed analysis since ORE measurements process, seven
factors are calculated; (Readiness, Availability of Facility,
Availability of Materials, Availability of Manpower, Changeover
efficiency, Performance efficiency and Quality rate). Some of these
factors are already calculated in OEE tool therefore, sample of
calculation is conducted for January 2014 according to equations (2.7
to 2.17) in chapter two [34, 35]:

4.4.2.1 Readiness (R) for Line Five;

From Table (4.1) the total time (Planned Operating Time) for
January is (720hr.) and the planned downtime is (422hr.), using
equations (2-18) and (2-9) therefore;
Planned production time = 720 – 422 = 298 hr.
R = 298/ 720 = 0.41 = 41 %

4.4.2.2 Availability of Facility (Af) for Line Five;

Availability of facility is calculated using the equations (2-10) and (2-
11); = 298 – 109.7 = 188.3 hr.
Af = 188 / 298 = 0.63 = 63%

70
 Chapter Four

4.4.2.3 Changeover efficiency (C) for Line Five;

From Table (4.5) below, the set-up and adjustments time for
January is (15.5 hr.). Fig. (4.14) shows line chart to clarify the
fluctuations in time. Changeover efficiency could be calculated using
equations (2-12) and (2-13).
Operating time = 188 – 15.5 = 172.5 hr.
C = 172.5 / 188 = 0.91 = 91%
Table (4.5) Set-Up Time for (2014) and (2015) years

Month Set-Up Time (2014) Set-Up Time (2015)

hrs. hrs.
January 15.5 14
February 22.5 6.5
March 28.5 2
April 20.5 8
May 29 17
June 45 43
July 90 37
August 36.5 18
September 32.5 12
October 34.5 16
November 12.5 9
December 8 2

71
 Chapter Four

100
90
80
70
60
50
Hours

40 2014
30 2015
20
10
0

Fig. (4.14) Set-Up time during (2014) and (2015) years

From the above Figure it can be noticed that;

 July 2014 has the max. Set-up time (90hr.) of the total planned hrs.
While December 2015 has the least, regardless of the months of
planned maintenance execution.
 This shows the potential of decreasing this lost time toward
increasing production line availability.
 Although the setup time in Dec. (2014), Dec. (2015) calculated is
the Min value still it is effect in increasing OEE values.

4.4.2.4 Availability of Material (Am) for Line Five;

As there is almost no material shortage in the production line,
all the processes that need materials are already and always exist since
there are many storage warehouses of different raw materials.
Sometimes short delays may occur, for example in the hot blowing
process when the machine reloads another package of ampules
therefore the time loss due to unavailability of raw materials is
assumed to be 1hr. per month. Availability of material could be
calculated according to equations (2-14) and (2-15).

72
 Chapter Four

Running time = 172.5 – 1 = 171.5 hr.

Am = 172.5 / 172.5 = 99%
Thus this factor is almost negligible throughout research duration.
4.4.2.5 Availability of Manpower (Amp) for Line Five;
There is no absence of the manpower since this production
line is fully automated and the operator most always exists to monitor
and perform certain activity. The delays that could happen for
example sometimes the machines need from operator to perform an
activity to continue working, so, the Absence of operator is assumed
to be 1hr. per month. Availability of manpower could be calculated
according to equations (2-16) and (2-17).
Actual running time = 172.5 – 1 = 171.5hr.
Amp = 171.5 / 172.5 = 99%
4.4.2.6 Performance efficiency (P) for Line Five;
Performance efficiency could be calculated according to the
same equation used for OEE tool and its value showed in Tables (4.2)
and (4.3).
P = 15% for January 2014
4.4.2.7 Quality Rate (Q) for line five;
Quality rate could be calculated according to the same equation
used for OEE tool and its value showed in Tables (4.2) and (4.3).
Q = 97% for January 2014

ORE value is the multiplication of all the above values

ORE = R × Af × Am × Amp × P × Q × C ……. (2-7)

ORE = 41% × 63% × 91% × 100% × 100% × 12 %× 97% = 0.027%

Tables (4.6) and (4.7) show the whole calculations of ORE tool during
(2014) and (2015) respectively.

73
 Chapter Four

Table (4-6) ORE Values of (2014) year

Availability
Changeover Availability Performance Quality
Readiness Availability of ORE
Month Efficiency of Materials Rate Rate
% of Facility % Manpower %
% % % %
%
January 41 63 91 99 99 15 97 2.7
February 65 63 92 99 99 27.5 97 10.2
March 59 69 90 99 99 29 98 10.4
April 38 65 88 99 99 16 97 3.3
May 52 47 83 99 99 29 98 5.7
June 62 68 85 99 99 29 98 10.1
July 47 37 29 99 99 15 98 0.7
August 87 67 91 99 99 45 96 22.9
September 84 59 90 99 99 37 98 16.1
October 67 39 82 99 99 27 97 5.6
November 73 51 95 99 99 26 97 8.9
December 51 54 82 99 99 20 97 4.3
Average 61 57 83 99 99 26 97 8

Table (4-7) ORE Values of (2015) year

Availability
Changeover Availability Performance Quality
Readiness Availability of ORE
Month Efficiency of Materials Rate Rate
% of Facility % Manpower %
% % % %
%
January 84 76 97 99 99 26 97 15
February 65 63 92 99 99 27 97 9
March 59 69 90 99 99 26.4 98 9
April 38 65 88 99 99 27 97 5
May 52 47 83 99 99 14.6 98 2
Jun 81 54 80 99 99 22 97 7
July 81 65 79 99 99 21 97 8
August 77 50 90 99 99 34 97 11
September 66 56 90 99 99 27 97 8
October 53 52 91 99 99 18 96 4
November 42 47 86 99 99 8 97 2
December 23 47 89 99 99 8 97 1
Average 60 58 88 99 99 22 97 7

74
 Chapter Four

From Table (4.6) and (4-7) it can be seen that;

 The average value of ORE for 2014 is (8%) and for 2015 is (7%),
this indicates decreasing in exploiting the production resources of
this relatively new line.
 Readiness factor is fluctuating each month that is effected by
planned downtime and breakdown times.
 In 2015 it can be seen that both the changeover efficiency and the
ORE results are decreasing in spite of that the company did the
planned maintenance in March then it gets increased in June and
July.

In order to analyze the ORE factors in detail, Figs. (4.15) and

(4.16) below represent the results of ORE factors during 2014 and
2015 respectively. From Figure (4.15) it can be seen that the;

 Factors (C, F, G) have almost no effect on the productivity

 Changeover efficiency results are all greater than (80%) except for
July which is 29 % as shown in (D), that’s because of the large set-
up and adjustments in this month. This result indicates of the need to
use right strategy or method for changeover (flavor type and speed).
 Factors in (A, B, E) are completely not stable; the fluctuation is
across the whole year (2014).

75
 Chapter Four

Readiness Af
100 100
80 80
% 60 60

%
40 40
20 20
0 0

Nov
Apr
Jan

Oct
Feb

Jun

Sep
May
Mar

Jul
Aug

Dec

Nov
Jan

Oct
Feb

Jun

Sep
May
Mar
Apr

Jul
Aug

Dec
A B

Am C
100 100
80 80
60 60
%

%
40 40
20 20
0 0
Feb

Sep
Aug

Nov
Mar
Apr

Jul
Jan

Oct
Jun

Dec
May

Nov
Apr

Jul
Aug
Jan

Oct
Feb

Jun

Sep

Dec
May
Mar
C D

P Amp
100 100
80 80
60 60
%

40 40
20 20
0 0
Feb

Sep
Nov

Mar
Apr

Jul
Aug

Nov
Feb

Jun

Sep

Jan

Oct
Jun

Dec
May

May
Mar
Apr

Jul
Aug
Jan

Oct

Dec

E F

Q
100
80
60
%

40
20
0
Feb

Jun

Sep
May
Mar
Apr

Jul
Aug

Nov
Jan

Oct

Dec

G
(A; Readiness, B; Availability of facility, C; Avaliability of materials,
D; Changover effecincy, E; Performance Rate, F; Avaliability of
manpower, G; Quality Rate)

Fig. (4.15) ORE values during 2014

76
 Chapter Four

Readiness Af
100 100
80 80
% 60 60

%
40 40
20 20
0 0

Aug

Nov
Apr

Octo
Jan
Feb

Sept

Dec
May

July
Mar

June
Nov
Apr
Jan

Oct
Feb

Sep
May

July
Mar

Aug
June

Dec
A B

Am C
100 100
80 80
60 60

%
%

40 40
20 20
0 0
Feb

Octo
Nov
Mar
Apr

July
Aug
Jan

Sept

Dec
May
June

Nov
Oct
Jan
Feb

Sep
May

July
Mar

Aug
Apr

June

Dec
C D

P Amp
100
%

100
80 80
%

60 60
40 40
20 20
0
0
M…

M…
Ju…

N…
Nov
Oct
Jan
Feb

Sep
May

July
Mar

Aug
Apr

June

Dec

Feb

Sep
Apr

July
Aug
Jan

Oct

Dec
E F

Q
100
80
%

60
40
20
0
Nov
Apr
Jan

Oct
Feb

Sep

Dec
May

July
Mar

Aug
June

(A; Readiness, B; Availability of facility, C; Avaliability of materials,

D; Changover effecincy, E; Performance Rate, F; Avaliability of
manpower, G; Quality Rate)

Fig. (4.16) ORE values during 2015

77
 Chapter Four

Also the same thing for Figure (4.16) it can be seen that the
factors (C, F, G) have no big effect on the productivity. The big losses
that happened and still decreasing without any improvement after
performing the planned maintenance is the performance factor that
shows big losses in both years. Figs. (4.17) and (4.18) shows the
variation of OEE and ORE for (2014) and (2015) respectively.

26
24
22
20
18
16
Percentage %

14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

Fig. (4.17) OEE and ORE in 2014

18
16
14
12
10
Percentage %

8
6
4
2
0

Fig. (4.18) OEE and ORE in 2015

OEE ORE

78
 Chapter Four

It can be seen from Fig. (4.17) and (4.18) that;

 OEE and ORE are high in August for both years.
 ORE in July 2014 is very low and that is an indicator for
management of necessity to make a decision to better utilize the
resources to increase these values.
4.5 OEE Software
In order to chase the fluctuations and support maintenance and
operation management, for decision makers at different operational
levels computer aided software is crucial to evaluate on real time
basis. Also this software may support TPM implementation through
reports that are needed to review the required operating information.
The OEE software is employed in this study and installed using
Systems2Win application that is compatible with Microsoft Excel,
version (13.8 Build B). This software offers multiple templates that
are compatible with Excel worksheets such as (Cause and Effect,
KaiZen, Pareto, etc.) [53].
4.5.1 OEE Software Input
OEE software input parameters are managed by two different
sheets according to user requirements which are;
4.5.1.1 Data Validation Sheet
Where user specified parameters include the Unit of Measure
(UOM), downtime threshold, lost time category, reject category, how
many shafts, and how many hours per shaft and product type or
family. These parameters could be edited by user.
4.5.1.2 Log Sheet
It is used for the daily event log in work center which all the
production data are introduced in this sheet as shown in Fig. (4.19)
where (A) is the morning shift and (B) is the night shift. These sheets

79
 Chapter Four

may help operation manager to follow up issues across the whole

production line since it offers day by day follow up. Also this sheet
reveals the defective and acceptable (good) products according to
each shift / day.

Fig. (4.19) Sample of Log Sheet Data of OEE Software

4.5.2 OEE Software Output

The generated data from this software may be in the form of
different sheet.

4.5.2.1 OEE Data Sheet

OEE data automatically generates forms which include all the
calculations according to the previous mentioned equations, results,
charts and (Andon) option that highlighted the in/out of threshold

80
 Chapter Four

percentages as shown in Fig (4.20). From this Fig. it could be noticed

that the details offered in results shows different categories such as
performance loss, downtime loss, etc. that is much faster and specific
and cannot be calculated manually.

Fig. (4.20) OEE Data Window of OEE Software

4.5.2.2 Dash Board Sheet

The dash board sheet offers another type of detailed charts and
tables as shown in Fig (4.21) shows the fluctuations of each factor of
OEE along each month. One of the important charts is the waterfall
chart that gives results according to shift, row number, month …etc.

Waterfall chart is a form of data visualization monitoring that

helps in understanding the cumulative effect of sequentially positive

81
 Chapter Four

or negative changes. It is sometimes called flying bricks chart or

Mario chart due to the apparent suspension of columns (bricks) in
mid-air [54].

Fig. (4.22) shows the waterfall chart for August 2014 as

example, that shows detailed time loss according to performance,
downtime, etc.

Fig. (4.21) Sample of OEE software charts

82
 Chapter Four

800

700
87
600
206
500

400
Hours

720
300 234

200 427

100 193

0
Available Time Planned Downtime loss Net Operating Performance Productive Time
Downtime loss

Fig. (4.22) Sample of Waterfall Chart for August 2014

4.6 Proposed TPM Implementation

As it has been found during this study that the OEE and ORE
values are low, also for better utilization of resources and to boost
planned maintenance activities, enhance machine availability and
performance, the proposed TPM time line that could be introduced in
January 2017 as shown in Fig (4.23) below throughout 32 months,
where two pillars are recommended to be introduced are; Autonomous
Maintenance (AM) and 5Ss, throughout the five phases of TPM
implementation as shows previously in Fig (4.1).

83
 Chapter Four

Assessment
5 Months
Implementati
on

5 Months
Planning
Phase

10 Months
Organization

6 Months
Awarness

6 Months
Nov
Apr

Nov
Apr

Nov
Apr
Jan
Feb

Oct
Jun

Sep

Jan
Feb

Oct
Oct
Jun

Sep

Jan
Feb

Oct
Jun

Sep

Jan
Feb
May

May

May
Mar

Jul
Aug

Mar

Jul
Aug

Mar

Jul
Aug
Dec

Dec

Dec
2017 2018 2019 2020

Time

Fig (4.23) Proposed TPM Implementation

 For awareness phase the planned maintenance is already employed
for this production line and during the investigation of the eight
pillars of TPM and study the activities of each pillars, it’s found
that there are some shared activities between pillars.
Autonomous, planned and 5Ss pillars are:
 Cleaning of work place, machines, tools etc. and;
 Inspection.
Also there are shared activities between planned and autonomous
maintenance pillars are:
 Lubrication.

84
 Chapter Four

 Predictive maintenance and diagnostic method.

 Fixing and taking care of small maintenance tasks.
All the activities of planned maintenance pillar are done by the
German staff which mentioned earlier in Fig. (3.3); overall check of
the production line, lubrications, changing oil and filters are those
kinds of activities that could be done by Iraqi staff by using the core
pillars of TPM which are (Planned and Autonomous maintenance).
That’s to reduce time, reduce cost and increase operator’s
involvement and maintenance staff. Training of staff should also be
employed to the time proposed is six months.
 Organization Phase:
This phase needs extra six months so as to develop plan that
conforms the production requirements and maintenance activities.
Also to locate contamination spots, and decide the appropriate
downtimes staff training and enhance machines performance.
 Planning Phase:
This phase should last for 10 months in order to assess staff
maturity, plans for training that should improve productivity
through better resource utilization. Rewards and employee’s
encouragement should be launched.
 Implementation Phase:
To be accomplished through five months where OEE software
is recommended to simplify, monitor, and decision making where
Line Five will be the pilot plan for factory toward the whole
company.
 Assessment Phase:
Five months is recommended so as to define weakness and
strong implementation spots and results gained from this
implementation steps are evaluated in this phase.

85
 Chapter Four

It is worth mentioning that six months for implementation

launch in January is needed for management commitment, budget and
maintenance staff preliminary training. The implementation of
autonomous maintenance and 5Ss pillars is assumed to decrease the
percentages of breakdowns as shown in Table (4.8). That will increase
the productivity by 20% and the availability by 35%. It should be
concluded that the major failures decreased from 50% to 25%.

Table (4-8) Effect of AM and 5Ss implementation on production Line

Five
Types of Mechanical Measurements Manpower Methods
Breakdowns
Existing failure
29% 21% 15% 10%
percentage
Assumed
percentage after
15%↓ 10%↓ 7%↓ 5%↓
AM & 5Ss
implementation

4.7 Concluding Remarks

1- There should be an appropriate plan or strategy of maintenance in
the company. Therefore, implementing TPM pillars could improve
the maintenance strategy of the company.
2- The actual production quantity represents about (2%) of the
designed quantity of the production line. And the actual production
time represents about (28%) of the designed production time.
3- Most of the defects happen in hot blowing process that represents
(60%) of the total defects, followed by inspection by (20%).
4- OEE value is poor and it is continuously decreasing from (11%) at
2014 to (9%) in 2015.

86
 Chapter Four

5- The quality factor is stable and represents an average of (96%), the

average of availability factor is not exceeding (40%) and the
average of performance factor is not exceeding (28%).
6- OEE software is very useful, easy to work with, powerful tool that
highlights the areas of weakness and extends the scope of analysis
since detailed (day by day) shift basis results are revealed.
7- Implementing these two pillars is assumed to increase productivity
by %20 and availability by 35%.

87
 Chapter Five

Conclusions and Recommendations for

Future work
5.1 Introduction
This research has been conducted and written in relation to the
implementation of Total Productive Maintenance strategy at Baghdad
company for soft drinks. The study aims to increase both of the
productivity and availability of the production system.
5.2 Research Summary
Throughout this research, two important TPM metrics have
been used which are; OEE and ORE to reveal losses type and
allocation for the production system at Baghdad company. Developed
methodology and proposed implementation of TPM are also presented
in this research in order to raise up the production system efficiency.
5.3 Conclusions
1. Production Line Five is suffering from downtimes and defects
mainly due to mechanical and measurements shared by 50%.
2. Result analysis shows decrease in OEE and ORE for the two years
of this study, in 2014 they are (11%, 9%) respectively and for 2015
they are (8%, 7%) respectively. it has been found that following
aspects has the greatest effect on productivity;
 Readiness.
 Availability of Facility.
 Changeover Efficiency.
 Performance rate.
 Planned and Breakdown times.
3. While the quality rate does not reach the world class values as its
average value is (97%) it is considered very acceptable and stable

89
 Chapter Five

through 2014 and 2015 but still is less than that of PepsiCo Inc.
specification of (99%).
4. The company works using planned maintenance only which has
been implemented in December 2014 and March 2015 but it is not
enough to increase the productivity and eliminate losses because of
the inappropriate usage of resources.
5. Detailed analysis shows low performance rate that decreased from
(28%) in 2014 to (22%) in 2015.
5.4 Recommendations for Future Work
Following points are recommended for future work;
1- Developing office TPM as it is an important pillar that can boost
other TPM pillars.
2- Developing data base where all production data are kept inside.
This data base may be integrated with OEE software throughout
real time production in order to assess and follow up the progress of
productivity that may help decision makers to identify, assign
issues and areas of weakness so as to resolve them.
3- Employing other TPM tools such as Single Minute Exchange Die
(SMED), Statıstical Process Control (SΡC), Cause-Effect Diagrams,
Setup Time Reduction, Bottleneck Analysis, etc.
4- Tacquchi design of experiment could be conducted to identify the
noise factor(s) that are affecting production so as to identify best
production options (bottles size, speed, flavor, etc.).
5- Implementing TPM for Line five /Al-Forat Factory to improve
production line efficiency and increase productivity and to be a
starting point to implement TPM for the whole company.

90
References

[1] I.P.S. Ahuja and J.S. Khamba (2008), “Total Productive

Maintenance: Literature Review and Directions” International
Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 25 No. 7,
PP. (709-756).

[2] Bergsman, J, and A. Häll (2010), “Improving Maintenance

Efficiency at AstraZeneca Through Increased Use of TPM” MSc.
Thesis, lenshow beng university, Sweden.

[3] Kobbacy, K.A.H. and D.P. Murthy, (2008), “Complex system

maintenance handbook”. Illustrated ed.: Springer Science and
Business Media, London, England.

[4] Shamsuddin A. and Masjuki H., (2002), “Action Plans for

Implementation of Total Productive Maintenance” Facility of
Engineering, University of Malaya, Malaysia.

[5] Jan H. P. Mey (2011), “The Impact of Implementing World Class

Manufacturing on Company Performance: A Case Study of the
recolor Mittal South Africa Saldanha Works Business Unit”, MSc.
Thesis, University of Stellenbosch, ArcelorMittal, South Africa.

[6] Lemma E., (2008) “Implementation of TPM (Total Productive

Maintenance) in Ethiopian Textile Industries” MSc. Thesis, Addis
Ababa University, Ethiopia.

[7] Almeanazel, O.T.R (2010), “Total Productive Maintenance

Review and Overall Equipment Effectiveness Measurement”,
Jordan Journal of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 4,
No. 4, PP 517 – 522.

93
[8] Baghdad Company for Soft Drinks – Al-Forat Factory.

[9] Bengtsson, M (2007), “Condition Based Maintenance in

Technical System”, MSc. Thesis, Malardalen University,
Sweden.

[10] Thomas R. Terfehr, Gary Graham (2010) “Enterprise Asset

management”, Genesis Solutions, Paper Code: 2MCON-116.

[11] Auvinen, I., (2009), “Implementing TPM at Metal Working

Company”, BSc. Thesis, JAMK University of Applied Science,
Sweden.

[12] Eswaramurthi, K. G., and Mohanram, P. V. (2013).

“Improvement of Manufacturing Performance Measurement
System and Evaluation of Overall Resource Effectiveness”.
American Journal of Applied Sciences, Vol. 10, No. 2, PP 131-
138.

[13] Kholopane, P. A. (2008), “An Assessment of the Total

Productive Manufacturing (TPM) Concept in a South African
Manufacturing Industry”, PhD. Thesis, University of
Johannesburg, South Africa.

[14] McCarthy, D. and N. Rich, (2015), “Lean TPM A Blueprint for

Change”, Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, U.S.A.

[15] Mar'emazairy, O. (2007), “The Implementation of Total

Productive Maintenance (TPM) At High Volume Company”
BSc. Thesis, University Technical Malaysia Melaka, Malaysia.

[16] Bon, A. T., and Ping, L. P. (2011), “Implementation of Total

Productive Maintenance (TPM) in automotive industry”, In

94
 Business, Engineering and Industrial Applications (ISBEIA),
IEEE Symposium, PP. 55-58.
[17] Arashpour, M. R., Enaghani, M. R., and Karimi, M. (2009), “The
Relationship between Lean and TPM”, MSc. Thesis, University
Of Borås, Sweden.

[18] Naguib, H. (1993), “A roadmap for the implementation of total

productive maintenance (TPM) in semiconductor
manufacturing operations”, In Semiconductor Manufacturing
Science Symposium, ISMSS, IEEE/SEMI International, Vol.
1212, pp. 89-97.
[19] Zhu, J., and Liu, Y. (2009), “TPM orients enterprises towards
production excellence: A Practical Analysis of OEE.”, MSc.
These, Malardalens University, Sweden.

[20] Gosavi, A., Murray, S. L., Tirumalasetty, V. M., and Shewade, S.

(2011), “A budget-sensitive approach to scheduling maintenance
in a total productive maintenance (TPM) program”, Engineering
Management Journal, Vol. 23, No. 3, PP. 46-56.

[21] Singh, J., Rastogi, V., and Sharma, R. (2013). “Total Productive
Maintenance Review: A Case Study in Automobile
Manufacturing Industry”, International Journal of Current
Engineering and Technology Vol. 3, No. 5, ISSN, 2277-4106.

[22] MY, B. S. (2012), “Total productive maintenance: a study of

Malaysian automotive SMEs” In Proceedings of the World
Congress on Engineering, Vol. 3, ISSN. 2078-0958.

95
[23] Bramstorp, O. (2011), “Implementation of the Focused
Improvement concept in outsourced production” MSc. Thesis,
LUND University, Sweden.

[24] Giegling, S., Verdini, W. A., Haymon, T., and Konopka, J.

(1997), “Implementation of overall equipment effectiveness
(OEE) system at a semiconductor manufacturer”, In Electronics
Manufacturing Technology Symposium, Twenty-First
IEEE/CPMT International, Vol. 7803, PP, 93-98.

[25] Mukaddes, A. M., Chowdhury, N. A., and Uddin, M. M. (2007),

“Total Productive Maintenance in RMG Sector Case:
Burlington’s limited, Bangladesh”, Journal of Mechanical
Engineering, Vol. ME37, PP, 62-65.

[26] Steven Borris (2006), “Total Productive Maintenance Proven

strategy and techniques to keep equipment running at peak
efficiency” McGraw-Hill Companies, New York, U.S.A.

[27] Loi, W. K. (2001), “Total Productive Maintenance and

effectiveness of Occupational Health and Safety Management
Systems”, MSc. Thesis, University of Western Sydney In
Conjunction with The Hong Kong Polytechnic University,
Australia.

[28] Ottosson, D (2009), “The Initiation of Total Productive

Maintenance to a Pilot Production Line in the German
Automobile Industry”, MSc. Thesis, luleå university of
technology, Sweden.

[29] Teeravaraprug, J., Kitiwanwong, K., and SaeTong, N. (2011),

“Relationship model and supporting activities of JIT, TQM and

96
 TPM” Sonklanakarin Journal of Science and Technology, Vol.
33, No. 1, PP, 101-106.

[30] Lindley R. Higgins R. Keith Mobely (2008), “Maintenance

Engineering Handbook”, Seventh Edition, McGraw-Hill
Companies, Inc., U.S.A.

[31] Samanta, B., and Banerjee, S. J. (2002), “Improving Productivity

of Mining Machinery through Total Productive Maintenance”.

[32] Cua, K. O., McKone, K. E., and Schroeder, R. G. (2001),

“Relationships between implementation of TQM, JIT, and TPM
and manufacturing performance”, Journal of operations
management, Vol. 19, No. 6, PP. 675-694.

[33] Jagathy Raj, V. P., Prasanth, P. S., and Pramod, V. R. (2013),

“Barriers in TPM Implementation in Industries”, International
Journal of Scientific and Technology Research Vol. 2, ISSN
2277-8616.

[34] Sharma, A. K., and Shudhanshu, A. B. (2012), “Manufacturing

Performance and Evolution of TPM”, International Journal of
Engineering Science and Technology, Vol. 4, No. 3, PP. 854-
866.

[35] Kumar, J., Soni, V., and Agnihotri, G. (2013), “Maintenance

Performance Metrics for Manufacturing Industry”, International
Journal of Engineering Research and Technology, Vol. 2, No. 2,
PP. 136-142.

[36] Joshi, M. R. R., and Naik, G. R. (2012), “Reduction in Setup

Time By SMED A Literature Review”, International Journal of

97
 Modern Engineering Research (IJMER), Vol.2, Issue.1, PP, 442-
444, ISSN: 2249-6645.

[37] Kiran, M., Mathew, C., and Kuriakose, J. (2011), Root Cause
Analysis for Reducing Breakdowns in a Manufacturing Industry.
College of Engineering, Kothamagalam, Ernakulam, Kerala.

[38] Gosavi, A. (2006), “A risk-sensitive approach to total productive

maintenance”, Automatic, Vol. 42, No. 8, PP, 1321-1330.

[39] Shahanaghi, K., and Yazdian, S. A. (2009), “Analyzing the

effects of implementation of Total Productive Maintenance
(TPM) in the manufacturing companies: a system dynamics
approach”, World Journal of Modeling and Simulation, Vol. 5,
No. 2, PP, 120-129.

[40] Panneerselvam, M. K. (2012), “TPM implementation to

invigorate manufacturing performance: an Indian industrial
rubric”, International Journal of Scientific and Engineering
Research, Vol. 3, No.6, PP, 1-10.

[41] Sharma, K., Gera, G., Kumar, R., Chaudhary, H. K., and Gupta,
S. K. (2012), “An empirical study approach on TPM
implementation in manufacturing industry”, International
Journal on Emerging Technologies, Vol. 3,No. 1, PP, 18-23.

[42] Eswaramurthi, K. G., and Mohanram, P. V. (2013),

“Improvement of Manufacturing Performance Measurement
System and Evaluation of Overall Resource Effectiveness”,
American Journal of Applied Sciences, Vol. 10, No. 2, PP, 131-
138.

98
[43] Oded Tal (2001), “Overall Resource Effectiveness; the Key for
Cycle Time Reduction and Capacity Improvements”, MAX
International Engineering Group – Operational, North Bergen
NJ 07020 USA.

[44] Nilmani S. and Sridhar K. (2013), “Methodology of Evaluating

the Overall Equipment Effectiveness in a Cylinder Liner
Manufacturing Firm Through Total Productive Maintenance”,
International Journal of Industrial Engineering & Technology
(IJIET), Vol. 3, Issue 3, PP, 1-10.

[45] Iftekhar A., Sazedul K. and Md. Mosharraf H., (2012), “Effective
Implementation of Total Productive Maintenance and Its
Impacts on Breakdown, Repair and Setup Time”, Proceedings of
the Global Engineering, Science and Technology Conference,
Dhaka, Bangladesh.

[46] Seng, O. Y., Jantan, M., and Ramayah, T. (2005), “Implementing

Total Productive Maintenance (TPM) in Malaysian
Manufacturing Organization: an Operational Strategy Study”,
the ICFAI Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 4, No. 2,
PP, 53-62.

[47] Kumar, P., Varambally, K. V. M., and Rodrigues, L. L. (2012),

“A Methodology For Implementing Total Productive
Maintenance In Manufacturing Industries–A Case Study”,
International Journal of Engineering Research and Development,
Vol. 5, No. 2, PP, 32-39.

[48] Kocher, G., Kumar, R., Singh, A., and Dhillon, S. S. (2012), “An
Approach for Total Productive Maintenance and Factors
Affecting its Implementation in Manufacturing Environment”,

99
 International Journal on Emerging Technologies, Vol. 3, No. 1,
PP, 41-47.

[49] Bengtsson, M. (2002) “Condition based maintenance in technical

systems”, PhD Thesis. Mälardalen University, Sweden.

[50] Dogra, M., Sharma, V. S., Sachdeva, A., and Dureja, J. S. (2011),
“TPM: A Key Strategy for Productivity Improvement in Process
Industry”, Journal of Engineering Science and Technology, Vol.
6, No. 1, PP, 1-16.

[51] Boussard, P. K., and Safonovs, J. Q. (2014), “The introduction of

TPM at Borealis Stenungsund”, MSc. Thesis, Chalmers
University of Technology, Goteborg, Sweden.

[52] Haddad, T. H., and Jaaron, A. A. (2012) “The applicability of

total productive maintenance for healthcare facilities: an
implementation methodology”, International Journal of
Business, Humanities and Technology, Vol. 2, No. 2, PP, 148-
155.

[53] OEE software, System2Win, version 13.1 Build 8, 2001.

[54] Box, G., Bisgaard, S., Graves, S., Kulahci, M., Marko, K.,
James, J. and Wu, C. (2003), “Performance evaluation of
dynamic monitoring systems: the waterfall chart. Quality
Engineering”, Vol. 16, No. 2, PP, 183-191.

[55] Afefy, I. H. (2013), “Implementation of total productive

maintenance and overall equipment effectiveness evaluation”,
International Journal of Mechanical and Mechatronics
Engineering, Vol. 13, No. 1, PP, 69-75.

100
[56] Mahmoud, M.A., (1988), “Determination of Optimum Periods
for Maintaining Industrial Machinery”, MSc. Thesis, Production
Engineering and Metallurgy, University of Technology.

[57] Batul I., (2008), “Computer System Construction to Select

Maintenance Strategy for Industrial Establishment”, MSc.
Thesis, Production and Metallurgy Engineering, University of
Technology.

[58] Mustafa M., (2014), “Application of a Decision Support System

for Maintenance Activities in Al-Dura Oil Refinery”, MSc.
Thesis, Production and Metallurgy Engineering, University of
Technology.

101
Fault Massages in Machine Control Panel

A
Types of Waste at Al-Forat Factory / Line Five

B
BSDC Daily Sales Tracker
Month 2015 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Container Brand Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
250ml RB Pepsi 50,550 57,503 81,000 100,700 89,101 107,450 112,200 121,700 159,425 111,208 89,874 43,100 1,123,811
24/case 7Up 17,550 30,650 31,500 51,200 41,451 34,700 39,900 59,400 57,300 37,850 19,633 12,100 433,234
Mirinda Orange 9,800 14,600 21,800 21,750 32,201 8,600 0 14,200 13,280 15,850 7,266 9,500 168,847
Total 77,900 102,753 134,300 173,650 162,753 150,750 152,100 195,300 230,005 164,908 116,773 64,700 1,725,892
250ml NRB Pepsi 24,091 36,102 38,629 27,805 53,583 58,839 60,193 63,795 41,879 40,329 18,608 14,802 478,655
24/case 7Up 10,538 18,082 19,773 26,999 19,470 24,667 17,408 34,015 39,799 18,038 9,536 7,630 245,955
7Up Lemo 0 0 0 0 14,791 12,331 4,725 26,103 0 0 62 1,794 59,806
Mirinda Orange 5,268 6,496 5,824 9,758 9,081 15,228 1 16,786 20,509 4,038 4,158 1,467 98,614
Mirinda Green Apple 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mirinda Lemon 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mountain Dew 17,143 23,858 16,069 38,310 10,869 33,942 57,357 121,539 56,786 55,217 24,082 2,808 457,980
Total 57,040 84,538 80,295 102,872 107,794 145,007 139,684 262,238 158,973 117,622 56,446 28,501 1,341,010
250ml Cans Pepsi 458,924 532,304 554,752 458,946 630,406 517,768 598,704 690,556 810,794 696,137 382,987 347,801 6,680,079
30/case Diet Pepsi 30,910 16,832 44,725 25,743 28,626 35,666 26,290 35,006 30,801 27,365 18,866 22,235 343,065
7Up 159,635 266,174 231,845 215,405 289,452 268,102 251,098 279,666 324,287 254,233 176,550 144,125 2,860,572
7Up Free 29,041 16,428 45,825 22,552 32,035 36,433 25,190 32,366 32,121 29,195 14,905 19,749 335,840
7Up Lemo 0 27,280 22,797 29,801 24,976 41,047 23,104 40,640 33,909 30,149 9,900 16,070 299,673
Mirinda Orange 65,456 50,766 85,558 80,139 79,779 75,175 89,281 110,365 97,769 102,382 51,140 48,145 935,955
Mirinda Green Apple 55,434 9,447 72,684 46,082 49,727 49,231 50,279 67,246 54,930 50,460 30,030 29,176 564,726
Mirinda Lemon 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mountain Dew 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Shani 46,116 59,433 54,082 56,221 69,487 58,370 65,402 98,575 80,764 75,262 36,265 45,237 745,214
Sting Gold 1,750 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,750
Sting Grape 1,678 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,678
Total 848,944 978,664 1,112,268 934,889 1,204,488 1,081,792 1,129,348 1,354,420 1,465,375 1,265,183 720,643 672,538 12,768,552
330ml Can Pepsi 198,602 166,948 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 365,550
24/case Diet Pepsi 11,081 7,097 10,449 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28,627
7Up 60,122 98,073 103,861 20,677 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 282,733
7Up Free 9,028 7,916 17,931 7,704 1,980 3,410 5,060 9,031 2,980 0 0 0 65,040
Mirinda Orange 26,498 26,613 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 53,111
Mirinda Green Apple 20,315 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20,315
Total 325,646 306,647 132,241 28,381 1,980 3,410 5,060 9,031 2,980 0 0 0 815,376
355ml Can Pepsi 0 0 353,960 254,244 224,465 207,135 190,346 425,053 315,243 355,622 142,782 151,717 2,620,567
24/case Diet Pepsi 0 0 0 10,450 10,450 5,610 4,510 9,460 3,741 5,508 5,292 866 55,887
7Up 0 0 0 42,572 85,511 81,400 94,050 121,646 110,533 104,655 36,290 29,978 706,635
7Up Free 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,944 2,916 758 5,618
Mirinda Orange 0 0 43,442 37,516 33,811 25,630 34,980 49,304 39,410 39,701 12,960 8,538 325,292
Mirinda Green Apple 0 0 39,034 22,595 7,271 5,996 9,130 13,310 7,520 7,020 4,320 1,566 117,762
Mountain Dew 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12,528 6,588 3,241 22,357
Total 0 0 436,436 367,377 361,508 325,771 333,016 618,773 476,447 526,978 211,148 196,664 3,854,118
750ml PET Pepsi 267,655 498,966 365,415 302,804 473,931 449,699 524,045 576,535 781,077 556,560 234,601 277,738 5,309,026
12/case 7Up 142,763 110,041 124,220 139,822 158,067 214,484 176,290 236,959 248,801 150,300 73,950 78,005 1,853,702
7Up Lemo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mirinda Orange 31,705 51,255 57,290 72,946 84,746 98,729 97,495 106,108 117,810 93,134 35,955 44,733 891,906
Mirinda Green Apple 17,085 15,504 15,725 18,530 15,215 35,571 38,930 33,704 46,835 30,260 14,875 6,630 288,864
Mountain Dew 6,377 11,076 7,225 18,068 18,956 13,768 80,580 118,830 99,450 93,032 24,820 19,323 511,505
Shani 61,987 32,270 75,445 69,785 72,958 136,959 78,910 184,620 135,257 118,148 77,860 65,145 1,109,344
Total 527,572 719,112 645,320 621,955 823,873 949,210 996,250 1,256,756 1,429,230 1,041,434 462,061 491,574 9,964,347
1.25L PET Pepsi 4,664 3,033 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,697
6/case 7Up 3,872 170 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,042
Mirinda Orange 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mirinda Green Apple 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 8,536 3,203 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11,739
1.75L PET Pepsi 397,713 308,151 339,415 598,020 461,006 595,369 610,285 759,345 929,257 575,972 313,769 311,524 6,199,826
6/case 7Up 66,485 106,483 107,025 139,370 169,361 167,381 171,920 244,640 222,000 152,688 80,080 69,440 1,696,873
Mirinda Orange 31,818 47,920 40,544 53,353 65,841 79,290 45,532 86,565 22,571 71,402 51,920 21,360 618,116
Mirinda Green Apple 5,201 4,000 1,100 22,058 15,040 13,926 5,840 20,638 29,360 23,218 9,440 2,000 151,821
Shani 21,680 23,140 8,235 44,109 41,442 54,363 65,840 75,600 47,570 60,597 36,160 26,880 505,616
Total 522,897 489,694 496,319 856,910 752,690 910,329 899,417 1,186,788 1,250,758 883,877 491,369 431,204 9,172,252
2L PET Pepsi 0 2,697 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,697
6/case 7Up 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mirinda Green Apple 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 2,697 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,697
2.25L PET Pepsi 86,104 75,446 20,240 115,609 114,364 92,039 122,191 199,482 100,959 110,624 39,821 43,247 1,120,126
6/case 7Up 22,212 17,115 0 40,339 37,742 15,744 43,173 37,294 31,873 20,876 5,766 5,972 278,106
Mirinda Orange 5,376 4,066 0 14,020 17,732 5,500 22,400 16,630 12,553 14,919 6,080 1,030 120,306
Shani 0 0 1,024 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,024
Total 113,692 96,627 21,264 169,968 169,838 113,283 187,764 253,406 145,385 146,419 51,667 50,249 1,519,562
2.5L PET Pepsi 0 30,720 124,967 0 0 52,224 0 0 0 0 0 0 207,911
6/case 7Up 0 0 41,604 0 0 16,711 0 0 0 0 0 0 58,315
Mirinda Orange 0 0 20,503 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20,503
Total 0 30,720 187,074 0 0 68,935 0 0 0 0 0 0 286,729
BIB 10 L Pepsi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diet Pepsi 0 34 37 33 50 0 37 47 0 50 0 23 311
7Up 0 0 0 0 0 0 54 49 22 90 37 29 281
7Up Free 0 32 27 29 0 0 0 0 50 0 0 22 160
Mirinda Orange 54 30 44 35 44 31 50 102 0 54 101 0 545
Total 54 96 108 97 94 31 141 198 72 194 138 74 1,297
BIB 20 L Pepsi 589 812 612 608 613 723 892 1,081 1,193 699 421 1,035 9,278
7Up 43 25 30 35 30 33 26 0 0 0 0 0 222
Total 632 837 642 643 643 756 918 1,081 1,193 699 421 1,035 9,500
0.33 Aquafina 18,888 21,600 12,784 15,358 14,350 1,843 43 0 2,773 158 43 36,364 124,204
0.6 Aquafina 12,560 9,320 8,340 10,017 12,183 15,640 1,805 55 5,465 0 0 23,733 99,118
Total Raw 2,514,361 2,846,508 3,267,391 3,282,117 3,612,194 3,766,757 3,845,546 5,138,046 5,168,656 4,147,472 2,110,709 1,996,636 41,696,393
Total 8oz 3,870,650 4,351,896 5,071,102 5,150,351 5,585,807 5,932,394 6,021,092 8,027,839 8,032,741 6,410,810 3,226,056 3,103,003 64,783,739
Target 2015 8oz
% #DIV/0!

2014

Total 8oz 0
B/(W) % #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
View publication stats