Design Engineering Workshop 2013
A Proposal of Total Productive Maintenance Training System
Dani Yuniawan* Teruaki Ito†
The University of Tokushima The University of Tokushima
Japan Japan
Abstract
The objective of this research is to propose a Total Productive
Maintenance Training System (TPMTS), which is integrated with
user training program (UTP) in order to advance the user
awareness regarding the Total Productive Maintenance (TPM)
concept. The TPMTS itself provide the integration of e-learning
module, simulation module, and experiment module. The
simulation module is employing simulation model by using
Arena simulation software. While the experiment module
employing Taguchi experiment design method. With these
integration modules, not only the user’s awareness about TPM,
however TPMTS can also recognize the production line
characteristic through Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE)
score measurement. The TPMTS itself is a training system
targeted to increase user’s comprehension and their confidence
levels towards TPM concept.
Keyword: Total Productive Maintenance, Training, Overall
Equipment Effectiveness, Simulation and modelling
1 Introduction
In today’s competitive manufacturing environment, companies
are constantly looking for ways to improve. This is because of the
increasing number of inventories, prolonged cycle time and lead
time, inability to cater to customer’s demand on time,
underutilized manpower, machine and workstation, low
productivity, and etc. One of the solutions that have been adopted
by companies is the implementation of Total Productive
Maintenance (TPM) as a part of Lean Manufacturing tools. TPM
is mostly regarded as an integral part of Lean. TPM originated in
Japan in 1971 as a method for improved machine availability
through better utilization of maintenance and production
resources. Nakajima, S. 1988, identified three main objective of
TPM: zero defects, zero breakdowns and zero accidents. These
goals are achieved through the implementation of activities
planned to increase equipment efficiency, the creation of a
program of autonomous maintenance, the establishing of a
planned maintenance system, the organization of training course
for workers and the design of a plant management system. TPM
uses an overall equipment effectiveness (OEE) index to indicate
equipment and plant effectiveness. The technique works to
eliminate the six big losses indicated by Nakajima, as down time
(caused by equipment failure, set-up and adjustment), speed
losses (owed by idling, minor stoppage and reduced speed) and
defects (caused by process defects and reduced yield). The Japan
Institute of Plant Maintenance promoted the TPM which includes
the OEE in 1971. In 1988, Nakajima introduced the TPM to the
U.S. OEE has since gained a lot of attention as the ultimate
performance measure of a piece of equipment. However, it is not
easy to implement the OEE in a company. Companies either fail
to implement it or did not get it right at the first time [Mohamad
et.al 2008; Mohamad and Ito 2011]. These obstacles are
inevitable, despite allocation of cost and efforts by the companies
to organize training courses [Mohamad et.al 2008; Mohamad and
Ito 2011].
--------------------------------------------
*
Email: dyuniawan@gmail.com
†
Email: tito@tokushima-u.ac.jp
**
Email: effendi@utem.edu.my
Effendi Bin Mohamad**
Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka
Malaysia
Teaching and training in this field is also a great challenge. It
involves simplification of the complex industrial processes and
providing pictorial information to the students and practicing
engineers. Psychologists have proposed that complex systems are
conceptualized and stored as pictorial mental model [Johnson
1983]. Each individual’s mental model is inimitable and tailored
to represent the individual’s perception and understanding.
Therefore, to facilitate understanding of OEE as TPM
performance indicator, a user-training program based on
simulation model and experiment is proposed in this paper. With
this user training program, it is targeted that university students
and practicing engineers (trainees) can learn TPM by OEE in a
more systematic and effective manner. Students will be able to
adapt faster to the system where else the practicing engineers will
be more skilled at TPM.
2 Research Background
Engineering education has evolved tremendously over the years.
Fifty years ago, Cooperative Education, which is a time-tested
method of enhancing learning in engineering, was introduced.
Cooperative Education is basically a progressive engineering
educational program involving theoretical and practical training
in engineering field. This educational program enhances
classroom training, makes training more cost effective and
increases students’ retention rates (Akins, 2005). Pollitt, 2006,
also emphasizes the importance of training in engineering and its
capability to transform a company. According to the Greenfield
Coalition’s Value and Beliefs about learning, if learning is
integrated with real-world experience and students actively
participate in it, students would be able to reach a deeper
understanding of engineering and enhance their skills
(Falkenburg, 2005). The current user training programme (UTP)
for TPM is seen to have infused these values by integrating
theoretical learning (classroom training and workshops using
PowerPoint slides, projector, whiteboard, printed hand-outs, and
notes) with practical application (on-job training and factory
visits). In spite of this, the current UTP still lacks the ability to
demonstrate and convince the users on the impact of
implementing TPM on a production floor before they actually
apply the project. Thus, users will have to conduct pilot studies
and other experiments in the production floor post training to
observe the impact of applying TPM to their manufacturing
process. In other words, there is a gap between attending UTP
and confidently applying TPM in real production floor (Figure 1).
3 Current Method of Teaching Training
Current methods of teaching and training of TPM are lectures,
using power point presentation slides, projector slides,
whiteboard, printed hand-outs, lecture notes and discussion. The
students/practicing engineer, on the other hand, utilize these
resources together with self-studying using recommended
textbooks to achieve a thorough understanding of the topics.
Nonetheless, it is noted that with these method it is difficult for
students and practicing engineer to completely understand the
topics [Mohamad and Ito 2011].
 Figure 1. Framework of Current UTP for TPM
There are certain limitations of the current methods, which
contribute to the difficulties to understand TPM topics well. The
methods are mainly lacking in creativity and not very interactive.
Lecture slide presentations are merely static figures, diagrams or
pictures to represent a concept or process. It is up to the audience
to imagine the whole process. This method does not encourage
interaction especially if the audience is passive. While the
lecturers might use a computer during teaching and training
session, the audiences are not (off line teaching). Therefore, one-
way communication dominates the session [Mohamad and Ito
2011]. Discussion held during or after a lecture may be short due
to time limits and the quality of discussion is determined by
quality of questions and answers. Overall, this method is unable
to increase attention, concentration and understanding of Lean
Manufacturing, especially TPM [Mohamad and Ito 2011].
4 Proposal of TPMTS
This paper describes an approach of integrating training
simulation and experiment to the current UTP to address this gap.
Total Productive Maintenance Training System (TPMTS)
Inspired by the Toyota style of organizational learning to keep
classroom training to a minimum (Liker & Meier 2006),
experiment and simulation for TPM are developed in this study to
provide a dynamic and flexible learning environment for users to
study the TPM by using OEE as measurement indicator. Hence,
the orientation of learning would be more learner-centric, time-
saving, accessible, and easy. As reiterated by Falkenburg, 2005
and Lian & Van Landeghem, 2007, the addition of simulation as a
training tool could enhance the current UTP. The advantage of
simulation is, it could be easily demonstrated in compressed time
and could be done with less analytic requirements (Czarnecki &
Loyd, 2001 and Verma 2003,). With simulation, users could
observe the various interdependent variables that affect
manufacturing process besides learning on the application of
TPM tools. This type of learning is considered as “double-loop”
learning as described by Liker et al., 1995 in their book
“Engineered in Japan”. In double-loop learning, the focus is on
learning through “holistic approach” whereby emphasis is not
only given to the newly-learnt techniques (in this case TPM by
OEE measurement) but also to the enormous variables that affect
manufacturing performance. Therefore, in this paper, a training
framework that integrates TPMTS (which consist of e-learning
module, simulation module, and experiment module) with the
current UTP is presented (Figure 2). UTP for TPM is a training
system targeted to increase user’s comprehension and their
confidence levels towards TPM. In addition, users’ time away
from work would be minimised through e-learning (Fletcher,
1990). The benefit of TPMTS is the user can be more awareness
about TPM implementation in the real production line. The OEE
is used as a performance indicator for it. The e-learning module
in TPMTS contain the TPM philosophy and its example, and also
introducing user to simulation with simple statistical experiment
in order to increasing the user understanding about the objective
of this training system. The simulation module is contain the
simulation model of the real production line, in this paper
crimping manufacturing line (CML) is used as an example. The
experiment module is contain Taguchi experiment design
method. The Taguchi method is chosen because it provide more
timesaving and simpler experiment method compare to others.
The TPMTS only used simple orthogonal array experiment in
order to make it more easy to conduct and easy to understand for
the user. By including the experiment module and simulation
module, it is not only increasing the awareness of TPM to the
user, however it also can be used to explore production line
characteristic. By using combination of simulation and Taguchi
experiment design method, the user can recognising which OEE
element that has dominant contribution in each workstation (WS)
in the production line. The calculation procedure can be seen in
Figure 3. The TPMTS is suitable for the user who want to
understand about TPM concept. The experiment module addition
can be used for the user who want to know more advanced about
OEE element characteristic in production line as TPM
performance indicator. From this point of view, the TPMTS user
segment is suitable for student, teacher, production line
supervisor, even production manager in the company.
4.1 Stage 1 Simulation modelling
A simulation model is developed using Arena Simulation
Software for a crimping manufacturing line (CML). The CML
simulation model was built before the experiment commenced.
This model consists of 3 workstations (WS) comprising the
machining, testing and marking processes. The layout of this
model can be seen in Figure 4.
 Figure 2. Framework of UTP for TPM with integration of TPMTS

Figure 3. Calculation Procedure in the TPMTS

Figure 4. Layout model for the Crimping Manufacturing Line

Table 1. Validation of the CML (Section 2 in CHM) Simulation model

       

  
 
   -
 

The parameters for the CML are as follows: The demand for
coolant hose products is 600 units (300 units of coolant CH4 and
CH6, and 300 units of coolant CH8 and CH10). Production time
between arrivals is 120 minutes. Product per arrival for each
product = 100 units; maximum arrival = 3 units; WS1 process
time t0,1 = TRIA(0.5,1,1.5) using triangular distribution; WS2
process time t0,2 = (0.5,0.75,1); WS3 process time t0,3 =
TRIA(1,1.25,1.5). Changeover occurs for every product type in
WS1 and WS3; total time for changeover in WS1 is 40 minutes,
while for WS3 total time for changeover is 20 minutes. The batch
capacity for each WS in the CML is 5 units, and buffer capacity
for each WS is 25 units. Each WS is handled by a single operator.
The route time between work stations is 0.3 minutes. Working
time in the CML model is set at 9 hours per day and the
simulation cycle is repeated ten times. For verification and
validation simulation model, it will be compared to results from
simulation software and mathematical calculations. A detailed
animation was used to verify that the simulation model
sufficiently replicated the real system. The calculation result for
validation can be seen in Table 1. The validation also used
confidence interval of 95% for confirming the result of the
simulation model.
4.2 Stage 2 Experiment Design based on Taguchi 13.9. The outcome from this experiment was divided into an
Method experimental result analysis and a response analysis, which were
related to the OEE element contribution measurement.
Genichi Taguchi of the Nippon Telephones and Telegraph
Company, Japan developed the Taguchi method. It is based on an
orthogonal array experiment, which provides a set of well- 4.4 Stage 4 Simulation Model Experiment Result
balanced experiments. The experiment objective is to measure and Analysis
OEE element characteristics in the CML using the simulation
method and analysing the result with the Taguchi method. To Table 3 reflect the outcomes of the experiments. It also describes
accomplish this, the control factors in this experiment are in each variation, including the OEE value for each WS for all the
relation to the OEE elements of (A) availability rate, (P) experiments. As can be seen in Table 3, the average OEE score
performance rate, and (Q) quality rate with two variation levels for all the WSs for the highest condition of OEE values was
each, as can be seen in Table 2. The variation of control factors attributed to the sixth experiment and the lowest to the seventh
will be implemented in the Orthogonal Array (OA) experiments. experiment. In addition, for the WS that has the lowest score
Each experiment simulation runs 10 replications with each OEE is WS2, which mean the priority improvement will be
control factor variation. In order to measure the control factors focused at WS2.
for A, P, and Q “failure,” “speed loss,” and “product defect”,
these OEE elements were respectively assigned to the CML Table 3 Result of Experiment
simulation model in accordance with the levelling of control
factors in the OA experiments.
.
In designing the experiment, an OA was required to conduct the OEE OEE OEE OEE
 P Q
experiment properly. Degree Of Freedom (DOF) calculations Exp. W1 W2 W3 O  
determine which OA is to be used in this experiment (Mason, R. 1     7%
7% 7
%  7%
L., and Gunst, R.F., 2003; Taguchi, G., Chowdhury, S. and Wu, Y. 2    7%
%  %   %
2007). For factors A, P, and Q, if the number of levels is nA, 3   %
 % 7 % %
nP.nQ, the degree of freedom = the number of levels-1; for 4  %
7% 7 % 
%
illustration A=nA-1. This experiment consisted of three control
   
7%
% 7% 
 %
factors with two variation levels. The DOF calculation for the
6  7
% %  % 7%
three control factors and three interactions (AxP, AxQ, and PxQ)
can be described as (3x(3-1)) + (3x(2-1) x(2-1)) = 6, respectively. 7    %

% 7 %  %
The number of experiments must be higher or equivalent to the 8  %
7% 7 % %
degree of freedom calculations. Based on the DOF calculation,
the OA deemed suitable for this experiment is L8(27). This OA
consists of eight experiments with two levels for each control 4.5 Stage 5 OEE Element Contribution
factor and a maximum of 7 control factors or interactions. This Measurement and Analysis
experiment uses two control factors for measuring the OEE
elements of availability, performance and quality. It is immaterial The purpose of this stage is to identify the OEE element with the
that only three columns of the array (three control factors) are highest influence on the OEE score. There are three types of
used and the 7th column in L8(27) is left empty (Chao-Ton Su, measurements for this experiment as mentioned earlier. The OEE
2013). The Taguchi method is not applied roundly because the measurement displayed in Table 4 shows that the availability
main objective is to identify the OEE element with the highest element has the highest delta value for the gap between level 1
contribution based on variations in the control factor level. and level 2, while the performance element has the lowest delta
Hence, in this research, the Taguchi method is not used for value. The measurements in Table 4 are OEE scores for all WSs.
optimization. The delta value denotes that if the availability element is
switched from level 1 to level 2 or from level 2 to level 1, then
Table 2. Control Factor and leveling for the experiment. the difference in values (delta) of OEE is 2.9%.

Nme Table 4 Response Table for Mean Overall OEE WSs

Contro Fctor Leve  Leve
Fctor
WS WS   by P   Qy
Unpnne Downtme
TRIA(,
,) TRIA (
,,7 ) 1 
% %   %
Fure (n mnute) for
WS WS 2  
% 
%  %
 ech WS, usng
TRIA( , ,) TRIA ( , ,) D 
%  %  %
trngur strbuton
WS WS
(Avbty) k  
TRIA( ,,
) TRIA (,
, )
WS WS
Performnce Rtng The OEE contribution is measured by grouping the result for
TRIA( ,, ) TRIA( , , )
for ech WS (n each level on each WS. Delta denotes the gap value between
WS WS
B mnute) usng level 1 and level 2 for each OEE elements. The overall OEE in
TRIA( ,7 ,) TRIA ( , ,)
trngur strbuton CML is shown in Table 4. The performance for all WS has same
WS WS
(Performnce) result, in the 3rd rank, since in this experiment implement only
TRIA(, , ) TRIA (,
, )
 Quty % % minor changes in increasing the value of cycle time. It considers
their machines capacity. The quality factor imposes the highest
influence for overall OEE score, and availability factor in the
second rank. Based on these result, the priority improvement
4.3 Stage 3 Simulation Model Experiment should focused on availability element in WS2, which has the
lowest OEE score, and the highest score of delta value. It shows
The simulation of the CML was conducted in eight experiments. that availability in WS2 has the significant contribution to OEE
Each experiment was replicated ten times corresponding to the
score improvement.
OA The simulation employed the Arena simulation software ver.
5. Conclusion and future work
From this point of view, it can be concluded that TPMTS give
more understanding to the users regarding TPM awareness. By
using integrating of e-learning module, simulation module, and
experiment module, it can provide more advance of awareness to
TPM philosophy and concept. Even the production line
characteristic can be recognized and analyzing it by using this
training system. It will be give more benefit to the users,
especially for the users who are need an advance understanding
of TPM concept.
For future work, this research will expand to user interface
development in order to make it easier to use by the user. More
addition is to conduct validation test to the user in order to
confirm TPMTS can give benefit as expected, easy to used, and
easy to understand.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to convey their sincere gratitude to the
Indonesian government, Merdeka University of Malang
(UNMER) Indonesia, the Malaysian government, Universiti
Teknikal Malaysia Melaka (UTeM), for their scholarship funding,
and the University of Tokushima, Japan, for their support and
provision of facilities to carry out this study.
References
AKINS T. M., 2005, “A Brief Summary of Cooperative Education:
History, Philosophy, and Current Status,” National Academy of
Engineering, Educating the Engineer of 2020: adapting engineering
education to the new century, pp 61-68, National Academy of
Engineering, National Press. Washington, DC.
CZARNECKI, H. AND LOYD, N., 2001, ‘Simulation of lean assembly
line for high volume manufacturing’, Proceedings of Huntsville
Simulation Conference (HSC2001), hsc037, San Diego, CA, U.S.A.
CHAO-TON SU, (2013), Quality Engineering – Offline Methods and
Applications, CRC Press pp. 67; Chapter 4; example 4.5, Taylor &
Francis Group, U.S.
FALKENBURG, D. R. 2005, “Information Technology in Support of
Engineering Education: Lessons from the Greenfield
Coalition,” Educating the Engineer of 2020: Adapting Engineering
Education to the New Century, pp 69.-81, National Academy of
Engineering, National Press. Washington, DC.
FLETCHER, J.D., 1990, “Effectiveness and Cost of Interactive Videodisc
Instruction in Defence Training and Education, Washington DC:
Institute for Defence Analyses.” [Online] IDA Paper P: 2372.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a228387.pdf (Assessed on 25
January 2013).
JOHNSON-LAIRD, P.N., 1983, Mental Models: Towards a Cognitive
Science of Language, Inference and Consciousness (Cambridge, MA:
Havard University Press).
LIAN, Y.H. AND VAN LANDEGHEM, H., 2007, “Analyzing the Effects
of Lean Manufacturing using a Value Stream Mapping based
simulation generator,” International Journal of Production Research,
Vol.45, No.13, pp. 3037-3058.
LIKER, J. K. AND MEIER, D., 2006, “The Toyota Way Field book: A
Practical Guide for Implementing Toyota's 4Ps”, McGraw-Hill,
United States of America.
MASON, R. L., AND GUNST, R.F., (2003), Statistical Design and Analysis
of Experiments: With Applications to Engineering and Science, John
Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey.
MOHAMAD.E, MOHD RAZALI MUHAMMAD, ROHANA
ABDULLAH AND ADI SAPTARI, 2008, “A study on The
Development of KPIs At Aerospace Manufacturing Company,” Journal
Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Page 1-17, Vol. 2, .ISSN:1985-
3 157.2008
MOHAMAD.E AND ITO.T, 2011, “Simulation-based computer aided
instruction system in teaching and training of lean manufacturing”,
Design Engineering Workshop 2011, Vol.11, No.211, pp.118--123,
Tosu, Saga, Japan.
NAKAJIMA, S., (1988), Introduction to total productive maintenance,
Productivity Press, Cambridge, MA
POLLITT D., 2006, “Culture change makes Crusader fit for the future
Training in lean manufacturing helps to transform company”, Human
Resource Management International Digest, Vol.14, No.2, pp.11-14
TAGUCHI, G., CHOWDHURY, S. AND WU, Y. (2007), Taguchi's Quality
Engineering Handbook, Appendix C: Orthogonal Arrays and Linear
Graphs for Chapter 38, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, USA.