International Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences

© 2013 Available online at www.irjabs.com

ISSN 2251-838X / Vol, 6 (8): 1161-1174
Science Explorer Publications

Total Productive Maintenance for modeling the

enablers in the performing of ISM access
Fakhraddin Maroofi

department of ManagementUniversity of Kurdistan sanandaj, Iran

Corresponding Author email: maroofif2900@gmail.com

ABSTRACT: Total Productive maintenance (TPM) is increasingly carried out by many organizations
toimprove their equipment efficiency and to achieve the competitive advantage in the global market
regarding cost and quality. But, performing TPM is not an easytask. There are certain enablers,
which help in the performing TPM. The highest need is to analyses thebehavior of these enablers for
their effective utilization inthe performing of TPM. The purpose of thisresearch is to understand the
mutual interaction of these enablersand recognize the ‘driving enablers’ and the ‘dependent
enablers’. In this work,these enablers have been recognized through the work,their ranking is done
by a questionnaire-based review andinterpretive structural modeling (ISM) approach has
beenutilized in analyzing their mutual interaction. An ISMmodel has been arrangedto recognizesome
important enablers andtheir managerial implications in the performing ofTPM.
Keywords: TPM, Total productive maintenance, Enablers, Iran

INTRODUCTION

Thisresearch emphasize, disturbed business-environment,well run organizationsstruggles continually

to increasetheir abilities to create superior value for their customers byimproving the cost efficiency of their
operations.Maintenance is thus a crucial support function in business, specifically as increasingly large
investments are existencerequired in physical assets (Tsang et al. 2000). Strategicinvestments in the
maintenance function can lead toimproved performance of manufacturing system and increase the competitive
market location of the organization(Jonsson and Lesshammar 1999). Thishas provided the urge to the leading
organizationsthroughout the world to adopt impressive and effective maintenancestrategies such as Condition
Based Maintenance (CBM),Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) and Total ProductiveMaintenance (TPM),
over the traditional firefighting reactive maintenance approaches such as Breakdownmaintenance (BDM)
(Sharma et al. 2005). Ahuja andKhamba (2008b) have stated that maintenance thoughthas advanced from
Breakdown maintenance to Totalproductive maintenance (Fig.1) over the years.TPM was considered as an
improvement schedule determiningan extensive productive-maintenancesystem throughout the whole life of the
equipment, surrounding all equipment-related fields, and with the participation of all employees, to advance
productivemaintenance through voluntary team- basedactivities (Dal et al. 2000). TPM is designed to
maximizeequipment efficiencyby determiningan extensiveproductive maintenance system covering the whole
life ofthe equipment, extending across all equipment-related fields andwith participation of all employees from
the topmanagement to the shop-floor workers, to advance productivemaintenance throughvoluntary small
group activities (Tsuchiya 1992).TPM can be specified as an approach to achieve rapidimprovement of
manufacturing procedures by involving andempowering production related employees and introducing a
continuous procedure of quality improvement (Nakajima 1988).TPM performing has arisen from
increasedequipment efficiency, higher productivity, and better quality, lessbreakdowns, lower costs, and
credible deliveries, motivatingworking environments, increased security and improved spiritof the employees
(Ahuja and Khamba 2008b).Though TPM provides a lot of benefits but performingof TPM is difficult task. It has
been studied thatmany of the organizations that tryto performTPM enterprises experience difficulties and are
not able toachieve the expected benefits. Mora (2002) has suggestedthat many companies have triedto
performTPM schedules, less than 12 % ofcompanies achievein performing TPM.PerformingTPM requires the
change of the organizational culture andchange of existing behaviors of all employees, operators,engineers,
maintenance technicians, and managers. TheTPM performing procedure has been charged with obstaclesand
risks. These obstacle or risk which makethis performing a difficult task include: lack of managementsupport,
lack of participation of production associates,lack of resources, lack of term vision, no authorize person (Chan
et al.2005). No doubt there are certain obstacleswhich preventTPM performing procedure but in spite of this,
Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol., 6 (8), 1161-1174, 2013

there arecertain enablers for successful performing of TPM.These enablers help the management to perform
TPM intheir firms. But need to be analyzed and the efficiency of these enablers understood so that the
performing procedure is completed without many obstacles.These enablers not only affect the performing
procedure of TPM but also affect one another. So it isreally necessary to understand the nature of these
enablersand their mutual relationship so that those enablers whichsupport other enablers (called ‘driving
enablers’) and thosewhich are most affected by others (called ‘dependentenablers’) are recognized. Inthis
research, try has been made to complete the task of analysis of enablers of total productivemaintenance (TPM)
through an interpretive structuralmodeling (ISM) approach. It is a well-founded methodologyfor recognizing
relationships among specific itemswhich define a problem or an issue (Sage 1977). Therefore, inthis research
TPM enablers have been analyzed using theISM approach, which shows the inter-relationships of theenablers,
their driving power and reliance's. In thisstudy, 10 enablers have been recognized through the work,a
questionnaire-based reviewand outlooks of experts bothfrom industry and academic environment. A
questionnaire based reviewwas conducted on Iranian industries to seek their viewsregarding the main enablers
for the successful modification ofTPM. In conformity with the ISM methodology, the outlooksof experts were
sought to develop the relationship matrix, which is later used in the evolvement of ISM model.The main
objectives of this paper are as follows:
To recognize and rank the enablers the performing ofTPM.
To found relationships among these enablers usingISM.
To discuss managerial implication of this research andsuggest guidance's for future research.
2. Recognition of enablers in TPM performing
Workreview of maintenance and production managers showthat performing ofTPMis not an easy task as it
determining new cultures (Patterson et al. 1996),changing policies (Turbide 1995), creating new
workenvironment’s (Maggard and Rhyne 1992), completing ideal shifts (Jeszenka 1993) and shifting the
responsibilityof the maintenance department to existence everyone’sresponsibility (Lawrence 1999). Based on
the range workreview, questionnaire review and discussion withexperts in the organizations, ten major enablers
were recognized,which can serve as an invaluable lesson to thoseorganizations that are planning to perform
TPM or are inthe procedureof performing. In addition, the enablers like worker training, crossfunctionaltraining,
teams, employee participation, TPM consultant, operatorparticipation, obligated leadership which are often
quoted with different names and headings are covered in this studyunder a common name like training and
education, totalemployee participation and Top management obligationand support. Hence, these ten enablers
are supposed to bemajor TPM enablers in the successful performing ofTPM. Enablers along with their
references/sources are existenceredisplayed in Table 1.

Top management obligation and support

The role of top management’s obligation andleadership has been often emphasized in many works to
have the conclusive affect over successfulTPM performing (Tsang and Chan 2000). Bamberet al. (1999) have
found management obligation asfactor affecting successful performing of TPM in UKmanufacturing
firms.Patterson et al. (1995) illustrated that to performTPM; an organization must be led by topmanagement
that is supportive understanding and obligatedto the different kinds of TPM activities. Top managementhas the
responsibility of preparing asuitable and supportive environment before the officialpromotion of TPM within their
organization.Such support is necessary to ensurethe unification of TPM into the business strategy,
andcontinuity of policy across company divisions (Park andHan 2001).The performing of TPM requires
topmanagement support, obligation and participation. Topmanagement needs to have a strong obligation to
theTPM performing schedule and should go all-out for developing mechanisms for multi-level communication to
allemployees explaining the importance and benefits of thewhole schedule, andin full faith generating the
TPMbenefits to the organization, employees by linking TPM tothe organizational strategy and objectives
(Ahujaand Khamba 2008a). Nakajima (1989) argue that the topmanagement’s responsibility is to found
afavorable environment where the work environment cansupport independent activities. Chan et al. (2005)
havefound management support as the important success factor in performing of total productive maintenance
in an electronics manufacturing company.Before TPM performing, top management shoulddecide the vision,
mission, and goals for the organization.Top management should determine sound foundation for familiarizing
TPM activities. Top management must develop TPM framework by developing policies.

TPM consultant
Consultants have main role in mutation on the organization. This role is organizing the activities due to
helping employees for solving their issues and training them for improvising their activities. Hence, consultants
are a facilitator for doing better training and helping employees in dividing their tasks while they are working. In
fact, they don’t suggest any suggestion for fixing the issues, they just act as facilitator or they help the staff for
finding better way for fixing their problems.Mora (2002) has stated that though in recent years, many
companies have attempted to implement TPM programs, less than 10 per cent of companies succeed in

1162
Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol., 6 (8), 1161-1174, 2013

implementing TPM. Implementing TPM requires the change of the organizational culture and change of existing
behaviors of all employees, operators, engineers, maintenance technicians, and managers. Davis (1997) has
outlined various reasons for TPM failure within UK manufacturing organizations that one of them was
deployment of inexperienced consultant. TPM implementing process has been fraught with roadblocks and
pitfalls. Then for successful TPM implementation companies needs to employ educated and experienced
consultant.

Coordination
The attempts of the TPM performing team must be suited after successfully familiarizing the
communicationand cooperation functions. Coordination advancesencouragingorganization of performing
attempts (Park and Han 2001).Management must develop a mechanism to coordinateactivities. Coordination
will help in achieving TPMobjectives and goals more easily.The TPM schedule should be suited within
thecompany by an admirer whois nominated on a full-timebasis, at least during the planning and
performingphases, and who can lead a performing team that isrepresentative of different company divisions
(Park andHan 2001).

Communication
Performing new technology may generate interests both within and outside the organization. A regular
affect is the loss of jobs. Sometimes, there maybe ambiguity about the impact of the proposed technology.
Communications should be in the receiver’ language and within his/her understanding: therefore the message
must be in terms of that individual’s experience and comprehension (Eti et al. 2004). Proper communication
can help moderate the fearsof those to be affected by the performing attempt. Welldeveloped, two-way
communication is required to supporta TPM system. Wide communication is a crucial factor insecuring support
for a TPM performing project (Parkand Han 2001). Communication will help the employee toknow the technical
and calm aspects of TPM.

Cooperation
TPMemphasizes that people operators, maintenance technicians,engineers, designers, and planners
must work as ateam if they are to maximize the efficiency oftheir equipment, by actively seeking creative
solutions for removingwaste due to equipment problems (Park andHan 2001). TPM is a team activity not a
single man activitywhich requires cooperation of all employees specifically production and maintenance
personnel’s.

Total employee participation

Total employee participation is really a pre-requite tosuccessful TPM performing and can be ensured
by improvement the capabilities of employees towards thejobs, developing the environment of equipment and
systemownership by the employees, suitable employee advising, and deploying encouraging and safe work
environmentin the organizations (Ahuja and Khamba 2008a).TPM demands active participation from the shop
flooroperators in the continuous improvements activities,crossfunctional teamwork, work suggestion
schemes(Nakajima 1989).TPM completed the maximization of equipment efficiency through total employee
participation andincorporated the use of independent.

Training and education

Maggard and Rhyne (1992) stated thattraining and education is crucial to the success of TPM.The
importance of training is also highlighted by Turbide(1995). Swanson (1997) has emphasizedupon worker
training as an important ingredient for successful performing of TPM in an organization. Blanchard(1997)
suggested that training and educational issues hadbecome one of the important factors to found
successfulTPM performing, where proper education begin asearly as during the TPM introduction and first
preparationstages. Chan et al. (2005) have also found training asthe important success factor in performing of
total productivemaintenance in an electronics manufacturingcompany.The top management must attempt to
train and developthe employee capabilities by modernizing their skill,knowledge and attitude to enable higher
productivity andachieve highest standards of quality, to eliminate productdefect, equipment failure
(breakdowns) and accidents, todevelop multi skilled work force, and to create a sense ofpride and membership,
among all employees (Ahuja andKhamba 2008a). Employee training should focus onsuitable multi-skills and
knowledge (Eti et al. 2004).

Integration of TPM goals and objectivesinto business plans

In order to realize the ability of TPM and ensuresuccessful TPM performing, TPM goals and
objectivesneed to be fully integrated into the strategic and businessplans of the organizations, because TPM
affects the wholeorganization, and is not limited to production. The first manner of action is to found a strategic

1163
Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol., 6 (8), 1161-1174, 2013

guidance forTPM. The change from a traditional maintenance scheduleto TPM requires a significant shift in the
way theproduction and maintenance functions operate. Rather thana set of directions, TPM is a philosophy, the
adoption ofwhich requires a change of attitude by production andmaintenance personnel (Ahuja and Khamba
2008b).

Motivation
Bamber et al. (1999) suggestedmotivation of management and manpower as a factoraffecting
successful performing of total productivemaintenance in UK manufacturing organizations. Motivationis the
changing behavior of employee towards workfrom negative to positive. The employee should be drivento
contribute to maintenance activities.

Teams
TPM is based on teamwork and provides a method for the achievement of world class levels of overall
equipment effectiveness (OEE) through people and not through technology or systems alone. TPM is an
approach to equipment management that involves employees from both production and maintenance
departments through cross-functional teams (Wang and Lee; 2001). TPM implementation requires a long-term
commitment to achieve the benefit of improved OEE through training, management support and teamwork. An
effective TPM program calls for deployment of teams for improving equipment performance through and critical
investigation of current and potential equipment problems. An important structure for employee involvement in
TPM is cross functional teams (CFT). Teams help to break down the barriers that are inherent in the traditional
approach to maintenance. Teams also help to identify problems and suggest new approaches for elimination of
problems, introduce new skills that are needed, initiate training programs, and define TPM processes. Cross
functional teams may involve participation from maintenance, R & D, process planning, production, and
engineering that work together on an ongoing basis or temporary groups formed to address specific problems.
The technical skills of engineers and experience of maintenance workers and equipment operators are
communicated through these teams. One key strategy in effective implementation of workgroups is ensuring
management’s support to the efforts to drive CI in the team environment. Team leadership should include
encouragement, facilitating and maintaining order, and help with decision-making. The organization must work
progressively for promoting smooth functioning of cross functional teams, autonomous work teams (AWT), and
problem solving groups (PSG). Maintainability improvement and maintenance prevention are two key team
based TPM activities (Ahuja et al., 2004).Hutchins (1998) has advocated for making considerable efforts for
recognizing teams and enabling them to display their work for successful TPM implementation.
Besides these enablers, the eight pillars of TPM (Fig. 2)will also serve as an effective tool in performing
ofTPM.Pillar 1: 5S TPM starts with 5S. It is an organized procedureof housekeeping to accomplisha peaceful
environment in thework place involving the employees. Problems cannot beclearly seen when the work place is
unorganized. The different S isas described below:

Table1.
Japanese term English 5S Features
Seiri Sort Sorting and organizing items as per frequency of usage
Seiton Systematise Storing the items in organized way
Seisio Sweep Cleaning of workplace to make it free from dust, dirt etc.
Seiketsu Standardise Maintaining standards for keeping workplace & machine in neat and clean condition
Shitsuke Self-discipline Treating 5S to develop self-discipline for following good housekeeping disciplines
Making problems visible is the first step of improvement. 5s is a foundation program before the implementation of TPM
(Venkatesh 2007)

Pillar 2: independent maintenance

this pillar aims to preparethe operators to take care of routine maintenance taskswhich will help to
free the core maintenance personnel to extract on high maintenance activities. The operator’sact of taking care
of small maintenance tasks will avoid theequipment’s from decline (Paneerselvam 2010).

Pillar 3: Kaizen
kaizen means change for betterin Japanese.It is focuses upon unbroken improvementof procedures in
manufacturing. Kaizenfocuses on zero losses, cost in reduction in allresources, improvement of overall plant
efficiency.

Pillar 4: planned maintenance

Planned maintenance aimsto have trouble free machines and equipment’s to producedefect free
products to satisfy the customer’s requirement(Paneerselvam 2010).

1164
Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol., 6 (8), 1161-1174, 2013

Pillar 5: quality maintenance

Quality maintenance aims tomaintain the equipment’s in good operating condition suchthat highest
quality products are delivered to customersthrough defect free manufacturing (Paneerselvam 2010).QM
activities is to set equipment conditions that eliminatequality defects, based on the basic thought of
maintainingperfect equipment to maintain perfect quality of products.The condition is checked and measure in
time series to extremely that measure values are within standard values to preventdefects (Venkatesh 2007).

Pillar 6: training.
Itis directed to have multi-skilledre-create employeeswhose spiritis high and perform all required
functionseffectively and independently. Education is given tooperators to improve their skill (Venkatesh 2007).

Pillar 7: office TPM Office

TPM mainly aims to improvethe productivity and efficiency in the managerial functionsby
recognizingand removing losses in them.

Pillar 8: security
health and environment Office TPMmainly aims to improve the productivity and efficiency inthe
managerial functions by recognizingand removinglosses in them.

METHODOLOGY

A questionnaire-based review and ISM approach have beenused to achieve the objectives of this
research.

Questionnaire-based review
The main purpose of the questionnaire-based review was to advance experts in developing a
relationship matrix as afirst step towards developing an ISM-based model. Thequestionnaire was designed on
a seven-point Likert scale andrespondents were asked to indicate the importance of tenlisted enablers on this
seven-point Likert scale. On this scale,1 is (very low) and 7are (very high). In total, questionnaireswere sent to
65Iranian companies. Out of the 65 questionnaires,42 completed questionnaires were received.Ten
questionnaires were incomplete and were rejected for further analysis. So, only 32 questionnaires were
analyzed.This gives a response rate of 25.6 %. Whereas higherresponse rates are better, response rates
below 20 % areextremely undesirable for review findings (Yu and Cooper1983). Malhotra and Grover (1998)
have suggested aresponse rate of 20 % for positive estimation of the reviews.On the basis of responses, the
company data of 32respondents is displayed in Table 2 and the enablers are displayed in the decreasing order
of their significance inTable 3.

ISM approach
In this section, first argument for choosing ISM methodologyfor this research is illustrated, and then
afterwards detail of ISM methodology is itemized. Poorlyspecified problemstend to be dynamic problems that
include human factors.Soft systems methodology (SSM) is generally used fordealing poorly specified problems
as to what shall be done,because at the beginning there is no obvious or clearly specifiedobjective. But the
main limitation ofSSM is that it can be used to solve only some poor parts ofthe system and not for building the
system as a whole. Inaddition, SSM is a very time-intensive procedure (Ravi et al.2005; Faisal et al.
2007).Delphi method is a structured technique which follows aseries of steps to develop a majority among a
group ofexperts. The main disadvantage of Delphi method is that itis very difficult to collect questionnaires from
busy individuals.The structural equation modeling (SEM) is aconfirmatory approach to data analysis requiring a
previous mission of inter-variable relationships. It tests ahypothesized model statistically to determine the range
theproposed model is with the sample data (Faisal et al. 2007;Wisner 2003). Anotherlimitation of SEM is that it
requires the statistical data to achieve results (Ravi et al. 2005).ISM is a procedure that helps groups of people
in structuringtheir collective knowledge. The use of ISM methodologyis also comparable to other methods such
as focusgroups, Qsort or paired comparison. ISM methodology usesmathematical algorithms that minimize the
number of investigation necessary for exploring relationships among a set ofideas, while these techniques do
not so. Therefore, ISM isquantitative as well as qualitative (Georgakopoulos 2009). A model describingthose
important variables thatshould be focused on such that desired results could beobtained would be of great
value to the top management.So ISM can be employed under such circumstancesbecause on the basis of
relationship between the variables,an overall structure can be extracted for the system underconsideration. In
this technique,a set of different directly and indirectly related elementsare structured into an extensive
organized model(Sage 1977). The model so formed describesthe structure of a complex issue or problem in a
carefullydesigned pattern implying graphics as well as words (Rajet al. 2007; Ravi and Shankar 2005). TheISM

1165
Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol., 6 (8), 1161-1174, 2013

procedure changes unclear, poorly intelligible mentalmodels of systems into visible and well specified
models.The information added (by the procedure) is zero. The valueadded is structural (Farris and Sage 1974).
ISM is a well-foundedmethodology for recognizing relationshipsamong specific items, which define a problem
or an issue(Jharkharia and Shankar 2005).The differentsteps included in the ISM technique are:
(1) Recognize the elements which are related to theproblem. This could be done by a review or groupproblem
solving technique.
(2) Foundof a context relationship between elementswith respect to which pairs of elements would
beexamined.
(3) Develop a structural self-interaction matrix (SSIM) ofelements. This matrix shows the pair-wise
relationshipamong elements of the system. This matrix ischecked for temporariness.
(4) Develop an attainability matrix from the SSIM.
(5) Dividerthe attainability matrix into different levels.
(6) Convert the attainability matrix into conical form.
(7) Draw digraph based on the relationship given in attainability matrix and remove temporary links.
(8) Convert the resulting from digraph into an ISM-basedmodel by replacing element nodes with thestatements.
(9) Review the model to check for thoughtful incompatibilityand make the necessary changes.ISM can be used
at a high level of unrealistic idea such asneeded for long range planning. It can also be used at a moretangible
levelto procedure and structure details related to aproblem or activity such as procedure design, professional
planning,strategic planning, engineering problems, product design, procedure re-engineering, complex
technical problems,financial decision making, human resources and competitiveanalysis (Chidambaranathan et
al.2009; Rajesh et al. 2007). For complex problem, like the one under consideration, ISM approach has been
used to develop an extensive organized model. Application of ISM procedure analyzes systems and problems
in different fields are welldocumented in work as redisplayed in Table 4.

An ISM approach for modeling of enablers

The different steps, which lead to the evolvement of ISMmodel, are illustrated below.

Structural self-interaction matrix (SSIM)

Experts, both from industry and academic environment, have beenconsulted in recognizing and
developing the contextualrelationship among the enablers.Following four symbols have been used to denote
the guidance of the relationship between two enablers (i and j):
• V is used for the relation from enabler i to enabler j (i.e.if enabler i affects enabler j).
• A is used for the relation from enabler j to enabler i (i.e.if enabler j affects enabler i).
• X is used for both guidance relations (i.e. if enablersi and j affects each other).
• O is used for no relation between two enablers (i.e. ifenablers i and j are unrelated).Based on a context
relationship, the SSIM has beendeveloped. To achieve majority, the SSIM was discussedin a group of experts
and based on their responses, SSIMhas been finalized and it is displayed in Table 5.

attainability matrix
The SSIM is change into an attainability matrix formatby changing the information in each record of the
SSIMinto 1s and 0s in the attainability matrix. The substitution of1s and 0s are as per the following rules:
If the (i, j) record in the SSIM is V, then the (i, j) recordin the attainability matrix becomes 1 and the (j, i)
record becomes 0.
If the (i, j) record in the SSIM is A, then the (i, j) recordin the matrix becomes 0 and the (j, i) record
becomes 1.
If the (i, j) record in the SSIM is X, then the (i, j) recordin the matrix becomes 1 and the (j, i) record
alsobecomes 1.
If the (i, j) record in the SSIM is O, then the (i, j) recordin the matrix becomes 0 and the (j, i) record
alsobecomes 0. Following the above rules, the first attainability matrixis arranged and is shown in Table 6.

dividingthe attainability matrix

The matrix is divided, by estimationthe attainabilityand proceeding sets for each variable (Warfield
1974). Theattainability set comprise of the element itself and otherelements, which it may help to achieve, since
the preceding set comprise of the element itself and otherelements, which may help achieving it. Afterwards
the crossing of these sets is derived for all the elements. The elements for which the attainability and the
crossingsets are the same engage the top level in the ISMhierarchy. The top-level element in the hierarchy
would nothelp achieve any other element above its self-level. Oncethe top-level element is recognized, it is split
out fromthe other elements. Then, the same procedure is repeated tofind out the elements in the next level.
This procedure iscontinued until the level of each element is found. Theselevels help in creating the diagraph

1166
Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol., 6 (8), 1161-1174, 2013

and the ISM model. In the present case, the ten enablers, along with their attainabilityset, preceding set,
crossing set and levels, are displayed in Tables 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14.

evolvement of conical matrix

In this step, a conical matrix is developed by clubbingtogether enablers in the same level, across rows
and columnsof the final attainability matrix (Table 15).

evolvement of digraph and ISM model

On the basis of conical matrix, a first digraph includingimpermanence linksis achieved. It is generated
by nodes andlines of edges. After removing the indirect links, a finaldigraph is developed (Fig. 3). In this
evolvement, the toplevel enabler is located at the top of the digraph andsecond level enabler is placed at
second location and so on,until the bottom level is placed at the lowest location in thedigraph. Next, the digraph
is changed into an ISM modelby replacing nodes of the elements with statements asshown in Fig. 4.

MICMAC analysis
Cross-impactmatrix reproduction referred toclassificationis shortened as MICMAC. The purpose
ofMICMAC analysis is to analyze the drive power anddependence power of enablers. MICMAC doctrine
isbased on reproduction properties of matrices (Sharmaet al. 1995). It is done to recognizethe important
enablers that drivethe system in different categories. Based on their drivepower and dependence power, the
enablers, have beenclassified into four categories as follows:
Independent enablers: These enablers have weak drivepower and weak dependence power. They are
relativelydisconnected from the system, with which they havefew links, which may be very strong.
Linkage enablers: These enablers have strong drivepower as well as strong dependence power.
Theyenablers are unsteady in the fact that any action on theseenablers will have an effect on others and also
afeedback effect on themselves.
Dependent enablers: These enablers have weak drivepower but strong dependence power.
Independent enablers: These enablers have strong drivepower but weak dependence power. An
enabler with avery strong drive power, called the ‘important enabler’ fallsinto the category of independent or
linkage enablers (Mandal and Deshmukh, 1994). The drive power and dependence powerof enablers is shown
in Table 15. The drive powerdependencepower diagram is drawn as shown in Fig. 5.This Figure has been
divided into four groups. First groupincludes ‘independent enablers’, second group includes‘dependent
enablers’, third group includes ‘linkage enablers’and fourth group includes ‘independent enablers’.

CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION

The major objective of this paper is to identify the enablers that significantly affect the successful
implementation of TPM in any industry so that management may successfully implement TPM in their
organizations. In this paper, an ISM-based model has been developed to analyze the interactions among
different TPM enablers. It identifies the key enablers on which management should focus for the successful
implementation of TPM.
The driver dependence diagram helps to classify various enablers of TPM implementation. There are
no variables in the autonomous cluster, which indicates no variable can be considered as disconnected from
the whole system and the management has to pay an attention to all the identified enablers of TPM
implementation.
The next cluster consists of dependent variables such as motivation and cooperation. In this particular
cluster, these variables have the least driving power and have highest dependence power. They are forming
the topmost level in the ISM model. They represent those variables that are resultant actions for effective
implementation of TPM. Management can perform a system which it recognize competency of teams and
employees/operators and specify periodic rewards base on time and important criteria in TPM. This action
encourages employees/operators for doing better their TPM activities and will improve the sense of
cooperation. Management should tack necessary and special care about these two enablers.
The next cluster consists of those variables that are termed as linkage variables which is influenced by
lower level variables and in turn impacts other variables in the ISM model. Management should create a strong
and proper communication system due to helps staff to understand technical aspects and the philosophy of
TPM and reduces the concerns that created from TPM activities. Proper education and training and also team
building according to the TPM objectives, can create strong communication and it will speed up the improving
and development of TPM activities.
The last clusters consist of independent variables. These variables are top management commitment
and support, integration of TPM goals and objectives into business plans ،TPM consultant and coordination.
These variables have strong driving power and weak dependency on other enablers. They may be treated as

1167
Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol., 6 (8), 1161-1174, 2013

the ‘key enablers’ for the successful implementation of TPM. Top management should show his support for
TPM implementation and commit in TPM activities and uses one perceptional consultant and employ some one
for coordinating and organizing TPM implementation. So, management with middle managers and operational
managers should specify TPM objectives and integrated them with business plan goals. Operational managers
should explain these objectives for the staff and adjusting teams and group activities in this regard.
The ISM model developed in this paper acts as a tool for top management to understand/identify the
key enablers of TPM implementation. This model has been developed on the basis of consensus of experts
(both from industry Savola Behshahr Company and academia), the results are quite generic and helpful for top
management to steer efforts towards the successful implementation of TPM.
Finally, it would be useful to suggest the direction of future research in this area. The next research can
study on each enablers and uses ISM model for developing factors can boost them or related them.

REFERENCES
Ahuja IPS, Khamba JS.2008a. Strategies and success factors forovercoming challenges in TPM implementation in Indianmanufacturing
industry. J Qual Maint Eng 14(2):123–147
Ahuja IPS, Khamba JS.2008b. Total productive maintenance:literature review and directions. Int J Qual Reliab Manag25(7):709–756
Ahuja IPS, Singh TP, Sushil M, Wadood A.2004. “Total productive maintenance implementation at Tata Steel for achieving core
competitiveness”, Productivity, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 440.
Badiru AB, Schlegel RE.1994. Project management in computerintegratedmanufacturing implementation. In: Karwowski W,Salvendy G
(eds) Organization and management of advancedmanufacturing. Wiley, New York, pp 255–279
Bamber CJ, Sharp JM, Hides M.1999. Factors affecting successfulimplementation of total productive maintenance: a UK
manufacturingcase study perspective. J Qual Maint Eng 5(3):162–181
Blanchard BS.1997. An enhanced approach for implementing totalproductive maintenance in the manufacturing environment.J Qual Maint
Eng 3(2):69–80
Chan FTS, Lau HCW, Ip RWL, Chan HK, Kong S.2005.Implementation of total productive maintenance: a case study.Int J Prod Econ
95:71–94
Chidambaranathan S, Muralidharan C, Deshmukh SG.2009. Analyzingthe interaction of critical factors of supplier developmentusing
Interpretive Structural Modeling: an empirical study. Int JAdv Manuf Technol 43:1081–1093
Dal B, Tugwell P, Greatbanks R.2000. Overall equipmenteffectiveness as a measure for operational improvement. Int JOper Prod Manag
20(12):1488–1502
Davis R. 1997. “Making TPM a part of factory life”, TPM Experience (Project EU 1190, DTI, Findlay, sponsored by the DTI.
Eti MC, Ogaji SOT, Probert SD.2004. Implementing total productivemaintenance in Nigerian manufacturing firms. App Energy79:385–401
Faisal MN, Banwat DK, Shankar R.2007a. Supply chain agility:analysing the enablers. Int J Agile Syst Manag 2(1):76–91
Farris DR, Sage AP.1974. On the use of interpretive structuralmodeling for worth assessment. Comp Electr Eng 2:149–174
Georgakopoulos A.2009. Teacher effectiveness examined as asystem: interpretive modelling and facilitation sessions with U.S.and
Japanese students. Int Edu Stud 2(3):60–76.
Hutchins D. 1998. “Introducing TPM”, Manufacturing Engineer, Vol. 77 No. 1, pp. 34-7.
Jeszenka RJ.1993. Breaking through the resistance: achieving TQMin maintenance. Plant Eng 47:132–133
Jharkharia S, Shankar R.2005. IT-enablement of supply chains:understanding the barriers. J Enterp Inform Manag 18(1):11–27
Jonsson P, Lesshammar M.1999. Evaluation and improvement ofmanufacturing performance measurement systems: the role ofOEE. Int J
Oper Prod Manag 19(1):55–78.
Lawrence JJ.1999. Use mathematical modelling to give your TPMimplementation effort an extra boost. J Qual Maint Eng5(1):62–69
Maggard BN, Rhyne DM.1992. Total productive maintenance: atimely integration of production and maintenance. Prod InventoryManag J
33(4):6–10
Malhotra MK, Grover V.1998. An assessment of survey research inPOM: from constructs to theory. J Oper Manag 16(4):407–425
Mandal A, Deshmukh SG.1994. Vendor selection using interpretivestructural modeling (ISM). Int J Oper Prod Manag 14(6):52–59
Mora E.2002. The right ingredients for a successful TPM or leanimplementation. Available at: www.tpmonline.com.
Nakajima S.1988. Total productive maintenance. Productivity Press, London
Nakajima S.1989. TPM development program: implementing totalproductive maintenance. Productivity Press, Cambridge
Paneerselvam R.2010. Production and operations management, PHIlearning Private limited
Park KS, Han SW.2001. TPM-total productive maintenance: impacton competitiveness and a framework for successful
implementation.Hum Factor Ergonomics Manuf 11(4):321–338
Parmod VR, Banwet DK.2010. ISM for the inhibitors of servicesupply chain: a case study in a safety health environment andrisk
consultancy health Centre. Int J Logis Eco Glob2(2):151–175
Patterson JW, Fredendall LD, Kennedy WJ, McGee A.1996.Adapting total productive maintenance to Asten, Inc. ProdInventory Manag J
37(4):32–36
Patterson JW, Kennedy WJ, Fredendall LD.1995. Total productivemaintenance is not for this company. Prod Inventory Manag J36(2):61–
64
Raj T, Attri R.2011. Identification and modelling of barriers in theimplementation of TQM. Int J Prod Qual Manag 28(2):153–179
Raj T, Shankar R, Suhaib M.2007. An ISM approach for modelingthe enablers of flexible manufacturing system: the case for India.Int J
Prod Res 1–30
Rajesh KS, Suresh KG, Deshmukh SG.2007. Interpretive structuralmodelling of factors for improving competitiveness of SMEs. IntJ Prod
Qual Manag 2(4):423–440
Ravi V, Shankar R, Tiwari MK.2005. Productivity improvement of acomputer hardware supply chain. Int J Prod Perform Meas54(4):239–
255
Ravi V, Shankar R.2005. Analysis of interactions among the barriersof reverse logistics. Technol Forecast Soc Change 72:1011–1029
Sage AP.1977.Interpretive structural modeling: methodology forlarge scale systems. McGraw-Hill, New York
Saxena JP, Sushil, Vrat P.1992. Scenario building: a critical study ofenergy conservation in the Indian cement industry. TechnolForecast
Soc Change 41(2):121–146
Sharma HD, Gupta AD, Sushil.1995. The objectives of wastemanagement in India: a future inquiry. Technol Forecast SocChange 48:285–
309

1168
Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol., 6 (8), 1161-1174, 2013

Sharma RK, Kumar D, Kumar P.2005. FLM to select suitablemaintenance strategy in process industries using MISO model.J Qual Maint
Eng 11(4):359–374
Singh MD, Kant R.2008. Knowledge management barriers: aninterpretive structural modelling approach. Int J Manag Sci EngManag
3(2):141–150
Singh RK, Garg SK, Deshmukh SG, Kumar M.2007. Modeling ofcritical success factors for implementation of AMTs. J ModelManag
2(3):232–250
Swanson L.1997. An empirical study of the relationship betweenproduction technology and maintenance management. Int J ProdEcon
53(2):191–207
Thakkar J, Deshmukh SG, Gupta AD, Shankar R.2007. Developmentof score card: an integrated approach of ISM and ANP. Int J
ProdPerform Manag 56(1):25–59
Thakkar J, Kanda A, Deshmukh SG.2008. Evaluation of buyersupplierrelationships using an integrated mathematical approachof
interpretive structural modeling (ISM) and graph theoreticapproach. J Manuf Technol Manag 19(1):92–124
Tsang AHC, Chan PK.2000. TPM implementation in China: a casestudy. Int J Qual Reliab Manag 17(2):144–157
Tsang AHC, Jardine AKS, Cambell JD, Picknell JV.2000. Reliability-centred maintenance: a key to maintenance excellence. HongKong:
City University of Hong Kong (internet publication)
Tsuchiya S.1992. Quality maintenance: zero defects throughequipment management. Productivity Press, Oregon
Turbide DA.1995. Japan’s new advantage: total productive maintenance.Qual Prog 28(3):121–123
Venkatesh V.2007. An introduction to Total productive maintenance(TPM). Available at: www.plant-maintenance.com
Wang FK, Lee W. 2001. “Learning curve analysis in total productive maintenance”,Omega International Journal of Management Science,
Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 491-9.
Warfield JW.1974. Developing interconnected matrices in structuralmodelling. IEEE Transac Syst Men Cyber 4(1):51–81
Wisner JD.2003. A structural equation model of supply chainmanagement strategies and firm performance. J Bus Logist24(1):1–26
Yu J, Cooper H.1983. A quantitative review of research designeffects on response rates to questionnaires. J Mark Res 36:36–44.

Table 1. TPM enablers and their references/sources

TPM enablers References/sources
Top Patterson et al. (1996), Park and Han (2001), Tsang and Chan (2000), Bamber et al. (1999),
management Patterson et al. 1995, Ahuja and Khamba (2008a), Nakajima (1989), Chan et al. (2005)
commitmentand
support
TPM Mora, E. (2002), Davis, R. (1997),
consultant

Coordination Badiru and Schlegel (1994), Park and Han (2001)

Communication Eti et al. (2004), Park and Han (2001)
Cooperation Park and Han (2001)
Total employee Ahuja and Khamba (2008a), Nakajima (1989),
involvement
Training and Maggard and Rhyne (1992), Turbide (1995), Swanson (1997), Blanchard (1997), Chan et al.
Education (2005), Ahuja and Khamba (2008a), Eti et al. 2004,
Integration of Ahuja and Khamba (2008b)
TPM goals and
objectives into
business plans
Motivation Bamber et al. (1999)
Teams Hutchins (1998), Ahuja, et al. (2004), Wang, F.K. and Lee, W. (2001),

Table 2. Data of the responding companies

Description of data Range Description of firms
Number of employees Less than 100 32
101–500 10
501–1000 30
1001–3000 5
More than 3000 5
Turnover (US $ million) Less than 10 10
10–20 27
20–100 20
100–200 10
200–400 8
More than 400 7

Table 3. Rank and mean score of enablers in the implementation of TPM

No. Enablers Meanscore Rank
1 Coordination 3.57 1
2 Top management commitment and support 3.46 2
3 Cooperation 3.46 3
4 Teams 3.39 4
5 Total employee involvement 3.37 5
6 Integration of TPM goals and objectives into business plans 3.37 6
7 Motivation 3.24 7
8 TPM Consultant 3.22 8
9 Communication 3.17 9
10 Training and Education 3.09 10

1169
Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol., 6 (8), 1161-1174, 2013

Table 4. Application of ISM approach for decision making

Name of the authors
Raj and Attri (2011)
Parmod and Banwet (2010)
Singh and Kant (2008)
Thakkar et al. (2008)
Thakkar et al. (2007)
Faisal et al. (2007a)
Faisal et al. (2007b)
Singh et al. (2007)
Raj et al. (2007)
Ravi et al. (2005)
Ravi and Shankar (2005)
Jharkharia and Shankar (2005)
Jharkharia and Shankar (2004)
Sharma et al. (1995)
Mandal and Deshmukh (1994)
Saxena et al. (1992)
Application
TQM barriers
Inhibitors of service supply chain
Knowledge management barriers
Evaluation of supply chain relationships
Development of balanced scorecard (BSC) for a real life case company KVIC
Supply chain agility enablers
Information risks management in supply chains
Advanced manufacturing technologies critical success factors
Flexible manufacturing system enablers
Productivity improvement of a computer hardware supply chain
Reverse logistics barriers
IT enablement in supply chain barriers
IT enablement in supply chain enablers
Waste management in India
Vendor selection
Energy conservation in Indian cement industries

Table 5 . Structural self-interactive matrix (SSIM

Enablers 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2
1 V V V V X V V V V
2 O V V V A A V V
3 A A A A A A A
4 O O A A A A
5 V V V V A
6 V V O O
7 O X V
8 X O
9 O

Table 6. Initial attainability matrix

Enablers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0
3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1
6 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1
7 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0
8 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1
9 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0
10 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

Table 7 . Final attainability matrix

Enablers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1*
3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1
6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1* 1* 1 1
7 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1*
8 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1
9 0 0 1 1* 0 0 1 1* 1 0
10 0 0 1 1* 0 0 0 1 0 1
1*entries are included to combine impermanence to fill the gap, if any, in the opinion collected during evolvement of
structural self-instructional matrix. After combining the impermanence thought as described above, the final attainability
matrix is achieved and is displayed in Table 7.

Table 8 . Iteration 1
Enablers attainability set preceding set Intersection set level
1 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 1,6 1,6
2 2,3,4,7,8,9,10 1,2,5,6 2
3 3 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 3 I
4 3,4 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 4
5 2,3,4,5,7,8,9,10 1,5,6 5
6 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 1,6 1,6
7 3,4,7,8,9,10 1,2,5,6,7,9 7,9
8 3,4,8,10 1,2,5,6,7,8,9,10 8,10
9 3,4,7,8,9 1,2,5,6,7,9 7,9
10 3,4,8,10 1,2,5,6,7,8,10 8,10

1170
Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol., 6 (8), 1161-1174, 2013

Table 9 . Iteration 2
Enablers attainability set preceding set Intersection set level
1 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 1,6 1,6
2 2,4,7,8,9,10 1,2,5,6 2
4 4 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 4 II
5 2,4,5,7,8,9,10 1,5,6 5
6 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 1,6 1,6
7 4,7,8,9,10 1,2,5,6,7,9 7,9
8 4,8,10 1,2,5,6,7,8,9,10 8,10
9 4,7,8,9 1,2,5,6,7,9 7,9
10 4,8,10 1,2,5,6,7,8,10 8,10

Table 10 . Iteration 3
Enablers attainability set preceding set Intersection set level
1 1,2,5,6,7,8,9,10 1,6 1,6
2 2,7,8,9,10 1,2,5,6 2
5 2,5,7,8,9,10 1,5,6 5
6 1,2,5,6,7,8,9,10 1,6 1,6
7 7,8,9,10 1,2,5,6,7,9 7,9
8 8,10 1,2,5,6,7,8,9,10 8,10 III
9 7,8,9 1,2,5,6,7,9 7,9
10 8,10 1,2,5,6,7,8,10 8,10 III

Table 11 . Iteration 4
Enablers attainability set preceding set Intersection set level
1 1,2,5,6,7,9 1,6 1,6
2 2,7,9 1,2,5,6 2
5 2,5,7,9 1,5,6 5
6 1,2,5,6,7,9 1,6 1,6
7 7,9 1,2,5,6,7,9 7,9 IV
9 7,9 1,2,5,6,7,9 7,9 IV

Table 12 . Iteration 5
Enablers attainability set preceding set Intersection set level
1 1,2,5,6 1,6 1,6
2 2 1,2,5,6 2 V
5 2,5 1,5,6 5
6 1,2,5,6 1,6 1,6

Table 13. Iteration 6

Enablers attainability set preceding set Intersection set level
1 1,5,6 1,6 1,6
5 5 1,5,6 5 VI
6 1,5,6 1,6 1,6

Table 14. Iteration 7

Enablers attainability set preceding set Intersection set level
1 1,6 1,6 1,6 VII
6 1,6 1,6 1,6 VII

Table 15. Conical matrix

Enablers 3 4 9 8 10 7 2 5 1 6 Driver Power
3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
9 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 5
8 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 4
10 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 4
7 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 6
2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 7
5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 8
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
Dependence
10 9 6 8 7 6 4 3 2 2
Power

1171
Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol., 6 (8), 1161-1174, 2013

Breakdown Maintenance
Preventive Corrective
maintenance Prevention
maintenance maintenance
(BDM) (PM) (CM) (MP)

Fig1- Journey of maintenance concept

Reliability Computerized Total
Productive
centered maintenance Productive
maintenance
maintenance management systems maintenance
(PrM)
(RCM) (CMMS) (TPM)

Figure 2. Pillars of TPM (Venkatesh 2007)

1172
 Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol., 6 (8), 1161-1174, 2013

Figure3. Digraph showing levels of TPM enablers

Cooperation Total employee Communication Motivation

involvement

Training and Teams

Education

Coordination

TPM
Consultant

Top management commitment Integration of TPM goals and

and support objectives into business plans

Figure4 . Interpretive structural model showing levels of TPM Enablers

1173
Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol., 6 (8), 1161-1174, 2013

Table16. Clusters of enablers in the implementation of TPM

Driving Power
10 2,6
9
8 8
7 IV 1 III 9
6 4,10 5
5 7
4
3 I II 3
2
1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Dependence power

1174