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

net/publication/305270698

Effect of total productive maintenance practices on manufacturing

performance: Investigation of textile and apparel manufacturing firms

Article in Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management · June 2016

DOI: 10.1108/JMTM-09-2015-0074

CITATIONS READS

66 3,124

2 authors:

G.L.D. Wickramasinghe Asanka Perera

University of Moratuwa University of Sunderland
40 PUBLICATIONS 622 CITATIONS 4 PUBLICATIONS 183 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by G.L.D. Wickramasinghe on 23 April 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Effect of Total Productive Maintenance Practices on Manufacturing Performance:
Investigation of Textile and Apparel Manufacturing Firms.

Structured Abstract:

Purpose
The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of Total Productive Maintenance
(TPM) practices on manufacturing performance of textile and apparel manufacturing firms.

Design/methodology/approach
A self-administered survey questionnaire was used for data collection. A total of 236 usable
responses resulted in a 78% response rate from 30 textile and apparel firms. Correlation and
regression analysis was performed using SPSS software to identify the effect of TPM on
manufacturing performance.

Findings
The results show that all the TPM practices have positive and significant relationship with
manufacturing performance and significantly improve cost effectiveness, product quality, on-
time delivery and volume flexibility.

Research limitations/implications
The study was carried out only with the lean implemented textile and apparel manufacturing
firms where TPM was formally implemented.

1
Practical implications (if applicable)
The study presented in this paper offers academics and practitioners a better understanding of
the relationship and impact of the TPM practices on the manufacturing performances. Thus
practitioners will be able to make better and more effective decisions about the
implementation of TPM practices.

Originality/value
The understanding of the effect of TPM practices on manufacturing performance is timely for
labour intensive manufacturing industries such as textile and apparel since it has not been
researched adequately. Therefore, findings will impact the global textile and apparel industry
positively.

Keywords: Total Productive Maintenance; Cost effectiveness; Product quality; On-time

delivery; Volume flexibility

Introduction

With the challenges of stiff competition worldwide and the drive for profits, the global textile
and apparel manufacturing industry is under pressure to provide quality products delivered on
time at a lower price, through high levels of performance and commitment. Manufacturing
systems increases in complexity with the introduction of new systems and technologies.
Further, the need to meet changing customer expectations in terms of performance and
effectiveness become more critical. Technologies adopted in advanced systems are also
becoming more costly in relation to their operation and support. To face the ever changing
customer demands, textile and apparel firms opted to adopt strategic changes in management
approaches, product and process technologies, customer expectations, supplier attitudes as
well as competitive behavior. Lean manufacturing principles and techniques have been
widely used by textile and apparel manufacturing firms to achieve these and gain competitive
advantage. Lean production has emphasized upon the re-examination of the role of improved
maintenance management towards enhancing the organization’s competitiveness (Riis,
Luxhoj and Thorsteinsson, 1997; Ahuja and Kamba, 2008a; Ahuja and Kamba, 2008b). Over
the past two decades, manufacturing organizations have used different approaches to improve
maintenance effectiveness (Roup, 1999). One approach to improve the performance of
maintenance activities is to implement and develop a TPM strategy (Ahuja and Kamba,

2
2008b). TPM exploits the employee participation to improve production equipment’s
availability, performance, quality, reliability, and safety (Ahuja and Khamba, 2008b).

Organizations across the world have long since been struggling to evolve the best possible
strategy for successful implementation of TPM. TPM experts and practitioners around the
world have now acknowledged problems regarding implementation of TPM in the
organizations due to factors like highly variable skills associated with the workforce under
different situations. Further, age differences of the workgroups, varied complexities of the
production systems and equipments, different organization cultures, and the differences in
prevailing status of maintenance competencies (Wireman, 2004; Ahuja and Khamba, 2008b)
are also made the TPM implementation more complicated. While there are several success
stories and research on TPM, there are also documented cases of failure in the
implementation of TPM programs in different situations (Ahuja and Khamba, 2008b). TPM
demands not only commitments, but also structure and direction. Some of the prominent
problems in TPM implementation include cultural resistance to change, partial
implementation of TPM, overly optimistic expectations, lack of a well-defined routine for
attaining the objectives of implementation, lack of training and education, and lack of
organizational communication (Crawford, Blackstone and Cox, 1988; Becker, 1993; Ahuja
and Khamba, 2008b).

Limitations of TPM and understanding of the relationship between TPM and manufacturing
performance in high labour intensive and low tech manufacturing industries such as textile
and apparel have been limited. Until the abolition of the quota under the Multi Fibre
Agreement (MFA) in 2005, textile and apparel firms in Sri Lanka had guaranteed markets
and virtually little competition for their business. Based on the current authors observation,
the approach to machine maintenance during that time was in a reactive mode and
traditionally, been one, where a centralized engineering/maintenance department is
responsible for all the equipment maintenance. The firm’s main focus was production
oriented. Generally their approach was to operate the equipment until it broke down, fix it as
quickly as possible, and then run it until it broke down again. This approach did not
encourage operator participation in the maintenance of machines that they operated. After the
abolition of the MFA in 2005, firms had to compete for lower cost, quality, on-time delivery
and lead time. Hence, Sri Lankan apparel firms have realized the importance of new
manufacturing strategies to enhance competitiveness and most of the organizations have
introduced TPM as a supportive tool for lean manufacturing.

3
Researchers reported positive effect of TPM on performance in the manufacturing industry
(Schroeder, 1993; Ward, Duray, Leong and Sum, 1995; McKone, Schroeder and Cua, 2001;
Ahuja and Khamba, 2007; Ahuja and Khamba, 2008a; Ahuja and Khamba, 2008b; Ahuja and
Khamba, 2008c). During our literature review, we found that although researchers
fundamentally regard TPM as an element of lean production which leads to higher
organizational performance, there were only a few case studies (e.g. Masud, Khaled, Jannet,
Khan and Islam, 2007; Senthilkumar and Sampath, 2012; Nahar, Rahman and Hossain, 2012)
that attempted to examine the impact of TPM implementation on organizational performance
of the textile and apparel industry. Therefore, the objective of this study was to investigate
the impact of TPM implementation on manufacturing performance of the textile and apparel
manufacturing firms namely; cost effectiveness, product quality, on-time delivery and
volume flexibility.

Literature Review

TPM principles evolved with the lean concepts to support the lean production system (Ahuja
and Khamba, 2008c; Jaaron and Backhouse, 2011). TPM is a common element of lean
production since it is used to reduce and eliminate the frequency of equipment failure (Ahuja
and Khamba, 2008c). TPM has been established as an innovative approach to machine
maintenance that is complementary to Total Quality Management (TQM), Just In Time (JIT),
Total Employee Involvement (TEI), Continuous Performance Improvement (CPI), and other
world-class manufacturing strategies (Ollila and Malmipuro, 1999; Yamashina, 2000; Cua,
McKone and Schroeder, 2001).

With regard to the research on lean implementation of the Sri Lankan textile and apparel
industry is concerned, Wickramasinghe and Wickramasinghe (2011a) found that participation
in decision making (PDM) was higher when the duration of lean production in operation was
longer than otherwise. However, perceived organizational support (POS) did not differ by the
duration of lean production in operation. Further, they found that the employee participation
in decision making (PDM) increases the affective commitment and POS moderates the
relationship between PDM and the affective commitment, and PDM and job satisfaction
(Wickramasinghe and Wickramasinghe, 2012). The employee who sees the employer as
supportive is more likely to perceive less turnover intention. Further, higher job involvement

4
in lean production significantly reduces the employee perceived turnover intention
(Wickramasinghe and Wickramasinghe, 2011b). Further, Wickramasinghe (2015) found that
there was no impact of gender on work attitudes of lean production.

The implementation of lean production concepts in the textile and apparel industry gives
more importance to TPM which is associated with superior machine maintenance. Masud et
al. (2007) reported that they have reduced equipment losses and maximized overall
equipment efficiency (OEE) in sewing by implementing TPM concepts. Senthilkumar and
Sampath (2012) showed that the implementation of TPM significantly reduced sewing
machine down time. Further, Senthilkumar and Thavaraj (2014) reported that there was a 15
percent to 30 percent improvement in operational performance and significant reduction of
lead-time due to TPM implementation in apparel production. Nahar, Rahman and Hossain
(2012) proposed a TPM model for a knit garment factory. The model was based on core TPM
activities such as autonomous maintenance, training and office TPM, and four major duties of
maintenance namely; inspection management, failure management, work management and
spare part management. They also highlighted that the model depended on the
implementation of continuous improvement, employee empowerment and standardization of
maintenance.

TPM is an innovative approach to machine maintenance that maximizes equipment

effectiveness by involving every single employee from top management to workers on the
production floor. It is based on the promotion of planned maintenance through motivation
management and autonomous small group activities (Nakajima, 1988). The definition of
TPM, according to Willmott (1994), is: “Maintaining and improving the integrity of the
production systems through the machines, equipment, processes and employees that add
value”. It is based on three major concepts maximizing equipment effectiveness, autonomous
maintenance and team work. TPM is a lean manufacturing strategy that optimizes preventive,
corrective and predictive maintenance while making equipment as efficient and profitable as
possible (Ahuja and Kamba, 2008b). TPM optimizes equipment effectiveness, eliminates
breakdowns and promotes autonomous maintenance by empowering operators through day-
to-day activities (Bhadury, 2000). Researchers have shown that TPM has significant
influence on a firm’s manufacturing performance (Al-Hassan, Chan and Metcalfe, 2000; Cua
et al., 2001; McKone et al., 2001; Ahuja and Khamba, 2008a; Ahuja and Khamba, 2008b)

Researchers suggest that the organizational culture is an important factor when implementing
TPM (Nakajima, 1988; McAdam and Mcgeough, 2000). Most of the available literature on

5
TPM, originated from the Japanese and Western experience, concentrates on the mechanics
of introducing the techniques of TPM and usually ignore the basic differences in the work
culture of Japanese and Western organizations (Willmott, 1994; McAdam and Mcgeough,
2000). Therefore, it is important to research on TPM implementation in an Asian context
since it has a significant difference to Japanese and western cultures. TPM demands that
employees move outside the comfort zone of the status quo and need them empowered in
decision making on autonomous maintenance (Willmott, 1994). One of the key ingredients to
the success of the TPM is the involvement of the workers. Therefore, TPM does not
guarantee a success and need to evaluate the rewards and the risks of introducing such
advanced manufacturing systems (McAdam and Mcgeough, 2000).

Companies realized that they cannot produce a consistent quality product with poorly-
maintained equipment. The concept of TPM was introduced and developed in response to the
maintenance and support problems encountered in a manufacturing environment. Many of the
same principles and concepts, such as employee involvement, documentation, teamwork,
leadership, performance measurement, etc., are applied in TPM (Blanchard, 1997). It requires
a total commitment by top management and employees at all levels (Eti, Ogaji and Probert,
2004). TPM is focused on zero unplanned downtime, zero defects, zero machine capacity
losses, zero accidents, minimum life-cycle asset care cost. It also focuses on increasing the
company’s full utilization of its assets, while maintaining employee morale and job
satisfaction (Eti, Ogaji, and Probert, 2004).

When it comes to measuring manufacturing performance, the most predominant approach in

the literature is to use cost, quality, delivery speed, and flexibility (Schroeder, 1993; Ward,
Duray, Leong and Sum, 1995; Sakakibara, Flynn, Schroeder and Morris,1997; Cua, et al.,
2001; McKone, et al., 2001; Ahuja and Khamba, 2008a; Ahuja and Khamba, 2008b). Cua et
al. (2006) found that TPM positively and significantly affect quality, cost, flexibility and
delivery. This study uses the above four basic dimensions of manufacturing performance
since these are standard lean Key Performance Indicators (KPI) in the textile and apparel
industry and most of the employees in the industry are familiar with the above KPI.

TPM has direct financial benefits such as economic efficiency or profitability, maintenance
prevention, improving maintainability, the use of preventive maintenance, and total
participation of all employees. One of the most significant benefits is the ability to plan and
control the maintenance expenses. Another financial benefit is the ability to reduce
maintenance work force by allocating certain maintenance activities to the operator

6
themselves. As the equipment becomes more reliable, and the process more repeatable,
scheduling the flow of work through the process will becomes easier and the need of safety
stock and time buffer decreases. Product flows through the system faster, resulting in fewer
inventory, as well as improved lead time (Jostes and Helms, 1994). Overall, the TPM
implementation leads to an increase in overall equipment effectiveness or availability of
machines, increase in productivity, improvement in quality, reduction in inventories,
reduction in numbers of accidents, reduced burden on maintenance department and
implementation of scheduled preventive maintenance (Ahuja and Khamba, 2007; Ahuja and
Khamba, 2008b). The bottom-line achievements of successful TPM implementation
initiatives in an organization include lower operating costs, longer equipment life and lower
overall maintenance costs (Ahuja and Khamba, 2008b). Cua et al. (2006) and McKone et al.
(2001) found that TPM positively and significantly affect cost. Belekoukias et al. (2014)
found that if TPM is not implemented properly and effectively, it will fail to achieve the
expected results, and it will also incur an extra cost for the firm. Consistent with the
literature, it is hypothesized for this study:

H1 =TPM is positively related to cost effectiveness.

One of the most important aspects of the total quality initiative is the product whose
manufacture is both repeatable and reliable. TPM support the quality initiative by assuring
that the equipment is reliable and sustainable. In TQM the equipment components that affect
variability in a product quality characteristic will be identified and controlled. This in turn
leads to high quality of the products, low costs and the products being delivered according to
the planned target values (Al-Hassan et al., 2000). Researchers found strong correlation
between the quality of maintenance and product quality (Al-Hassan et al., 2000). Customer
satisfaction will also improve as the quality of the product improves. Customers demand
consistent and reliable quality product and TPM could help to achieve that by assisting TQM
initiatives. This relationship stresses the need of implementation of a TPM rather than a
reactive maintenance programmes. Researchers found that TPM positively and significantly
affect product quality (Cua et al., 2006, McKone et al., 2001). Belekoukias et al. (2014)
found that TPM did not have an impact on product quality when the firms haven’t had
implemented TPM effectively. Consistent with the literature, it is hypothesized for this study:

H2 =TPM is positively related to product quality.

7
On-time delivery is one of the most critical KPI in textile and apparel industry because if
orders are not completed and delivered on time it will lead to the loss of buyers (Business to
Business) and there will be difficulties in acquiring new buyers. The improvement of
equipment availability and effectiveness, prevention of defects, reduction of scraps and
rework that is achieved in implementation of TPM will improve on-time delivery percentage.
Many studies support the positive and significant impact of TPM on, on-time delivery (Cua et
al., 2006; McKone et al., 2001; Ward and Zhou, 2006; Belekoukias, Garza-Reyes and
Kumar, 2014). Belekoukias et al. (2014) found that TPM did not have an impact on on-time
delivery when the firms haven’t had implemented TPM effectively. Consistent with the
literature, it is hypothesized for this study:

H3 =TPM is positively related to on-time delivery.

Where the global textile and apparel industry is concerned, manufacturing flexibility is one of
the most important competitive strategic factors. The competitive environment of the
manufacturing industry has seen a major transformation in the last decades, from the relative
stability high volume long product life cycle, to today’s intense global competition with low
volume shorter product life cycles (Barnes-Schuster, Bassok and Anupindi, 2002). Flexibility
is a complex, multidimensional concept which was introduced for the manufacturing sector to
evaluate how firms could adopt environmental variations and changes in their manufacturing
processes, such as equipment breakdowns, variable task times, queuing delays, and re-
workings (Sethi and Sethi, 1990; Dixon, 1992; Gupta and Goyal, 1989; Hallgren and
Olhager, 2009).

It is well established that flexibility can be viewed in many perspectives; the two most widely
cited being volume flexibility and product-mix flexibility (Hutchison and Das, 2007;
Salvador, Rungtusanatham, Forza and Trentin, 2007; Hallgren and Olhager, 2009). Volume
flexibility is defined as the ability to change the level of output of a manufacturing process. It
demonstrates the competitive potential of the firm to increase production volume to meet
rising demand and to keep inventory low as demands fall (Gerwin, 1993; D’Souza and
Williams, 2000; Hallgren and Olhager, 2009). Cua et al. (2006) and McKone et al. (2001)
found that TPM positively and significantly affect flexibility. Belekoukias et al. (2014) found
that TPM did not have an impact on volume flexibility when the firms haven’t had
implemented TPM effectively. Consistent with the literature, it is hypothesized for this study:

H4 =TPM is positively related to volume flexibility.

8
To test the four hypotheses above, we conducted an empirical investigation into TPM
implemented firms in Sri Lanka. The methodology adopted, findings, conclusions and
implications are presented separately below.

Methodology

Sample

The sample of this study was the Sri Lankan export oriented textile and apparel
manufacturing firms which had implemented TPM. The following criteria were set in
selecting the firms belonging to the study population. First, a firm should be registered under
the Board of Investment (BOI) of Sri Lanka since it is compulsory that all BOI registered
firms should export at least 90 percent of what they manufacture. Second, a firm should have
implemented a formal TPM system in the whole manufacturing function and it should be the
standard of operation for at least one year. Third, following Shah and Ward (2003 and 2007),
firms with more than 100 employees were selected. Although there were nearly 800 firms
engaged in the export oriented textile and apparel manufacturing industry in Sri Lanka, only
30 firms had fully implemented TPM systems which were running for at least one year, and
was qualified for the study. Those 30 firms were considered as the population frame for the
study and all the firms agreed to participate in the survey. A self-administered survey
questionnaire was used for data collection. Three hundred survey questionnaires were
distributed among 30 firms identified as having implemented TPM. In order to reduce the
degree of subjectivity of the study, the survey targeted managers or executives that had
knowledge on the subject and also involvement on TPM implementation. It was assumed that
such respondents will have a better understanding of the firms TPM initiatives and
manufacturing performance before and after the implementation of TPM. In addition, the
respondents were initially briefed about the context of the research in order to obtain more
uniform and less subjective answers. The questionnaires were anonymous in order to protect
the respondent’s own personal privacy, integrity and interests. The questionnaire was
validated (as recommended by Robson, 2002) through a pilot study with the help of industry
experts who were considered as pioneers in TPM implementation. We received feedback on
the questionnaire’s rationale, language and presentation. It helped to eliminate ambiguous
questions and improve the questionnaire before been sent to the industry. A total of 236
usable responses resulted in a 78% response rate. This response rate can be considered as
acceptable to conduct a reliable analysis and draw conclusions (Cohen, Manion, and
Morrison, 2007).

9
Measures

Variables of TPM practices, cost effectiveness, product quality, on-time delivery and volume
flexibility were measured using a five-point Likert response scale ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The TPM implementation scale was developed based on the
literature reviewed above (Nakajima, 1988; Ahuja & Khamba, 2007; Ahuja & Khamba,
2008a) and insight gained from our preliminary investigations. Content of the 8 TPM
practices that are covered in the questionnaire are as follows.

TPM1 - Autonomous Maintenance: Include sub areas such as fostering operators’ skills,
fostering operators’ ownership, and performing cleaning/lubricating/adjusting on production
equipment.
Autonomous maintenance was measured using 5 items covering the above sub areas. An
example item includes “Operators are given specific training to improve their machine
maintenance skills”, “Operators are empowered to attend machine cleaning, routine
maintenance and minor adjustments”.
TPM2 - Individual Improvement: Include sub areas such as systematic identification &
estimation of losses, working out loss structure & loss mitigation, achieving improved system
efficiency, and improving overall equipment effectiveness.
Individual Improvement was measured using 3 items covering the above sub areas. An
example item includes “Systems are implemented for systematic identification and
elimination of loses”.
TPM3 - Planned Maintenance: Include sub areas such as effective & efficient preventive
maintenance system, establishing preventive maintenance check lists, and improvements on
time between failures & recovery time.
Planned Maintenance was measured using 4 items covering the above sub areas. An example
item includes “Company has effective and efficient maintenance procedures to preventing
machine breakdowns”.

TPM4 - Quality Maintenance: Include sub areas such as achieving zero defects, tracking &
addressing equipment problems & root cause, and setting 3M (Machine / Man/ Material)
conditions.
Quality Maintenance was measured using 3 items covering the above sub areas. An example
item includes “TPM is used as a tool in achieving zero defects”.

10
TPM5 - Education and development: Include sub areas such as imparting technological,
quality control, interpersonal skills, multi-skilling of employees, aligning employees to the
organizational goals, and periodic skill evaluation and updating.
Education and development was measured using 3 items covering the above sub areas. An
example item includes “Company has a structured training programme to achieve multi
skilling of employees”.
TPM6 - Safety Health and Environment: Include sub areas such as to ensure safe work
environment, provide appropriate work environment, and eliminate incidents of injuries &
accidents.
Safety Health and Environment was measured using 4 items covering the above sub areas.
An example item includes “Safety initiatives and devices are in place on the machines to
ensure safety of the employees.”
TPM7 - Office TPM: Include sub areas such as to improve synergy between various business
functions, remove procedural hassles, focus on addressing cost related issues, and apply 5S in
office & working areas.
Office TPM was measured using 3 items covering the above sub areas. An example item
includes “Company has strong interdepartmental relationships and jobs get done on time.”
TPM 8 - Development Management: Include sub areas such as minimal problems & running
on time on with new equipment, utilize learning from existing systems to new systems, and
maintain improvement initiatives.
Development Management was measured using 4 items covering the above sub areas. An
example item includes “Maintenance improvement initiatives of operators are encouraged
and rewarded.”

Manufacturing performance was measured as cost effectiveness, product quality, on-time

delivery and volume flexibility using an 18 item scale, developed for the study based on
previous researches on lean and TPM implementation (Cua et al., 2001; McKone et al., 2001;
Cua et al., 2006; Hallgren and Olhager, 2009). The scale was tested for reliability.

Data Analysis Procedure

A multivariate analysis of variance was conducted to check whether any group

differences exist among the responses from the 30 firms for the five variables of the study.

11
Correlation and regression analysis were performed using SPSS software to identify the
effect of TPM on manufacturing performance.

Results

From the 236 usable responses, 44.9 percent responses were from textile firms and 55.1
percent were from apparel firms. With regard to the characteristics of the respondents, 41.5
percent of respondents had diploma or degree qualifications, 49.6 percent had 13 years of
schooling and only 8.9 percent had 10 years of schooling. 51.7 percent of the respondents
were male and 48.3 percent respondents were female. The results of the Wilks’ Lambda
statistics for the three variables revealed that significant differences do not exist (p>0.05)
among the responses from the 30 firms. Independent sample t-test was conducted to identify
whether there are any significant differences in TPM implementation between textile firms
and apparel firms. Results suggest that there are no significant differences (p>0.05) in the
level of implementation of these eight TPM concepts between textile firms and apparel firms.
Independent sample t-test was conducted to analyze whether there are any gender differences
among the responses. Results suggest that there are no significant differences (p>0.05) in the
responses of males and females. A one way ANOVA test was conducted to analyze whether
there are any differences in terms of the level of education and age of the respondents.
Results suggest that there are no significant differences (p>0.05) in the responses in terms of
the level of education and age of the respondents.

The Cronbach’s Alpha values and AVE values for 8 TPM practices are shown in table 1.
According to the results, the constructs can be considered as reliable.

TPM practices Cronbach’s Alpha AVE

1. Autonomous Maintenance 0.727 0.543
2. Individual Improvement 0.683 0.532
3. Planned Maintenance 0.749 0.615
4. Quality Maintenance 0.687 0.494
5. Education and development 0.761 0.728
6. Safety Health and Environment 0.711 0.554
7. Office TPM 0.694 0.590
8. Development Management 0.746 0.541
Table 1. Reliability analysis of TPM practices

12
 The Cronbach’s Alpha values and AVE values are shown in table 2. According to the results,
the constructs can be considered as reliable.

Manufacturing Performance Cronbach’s Alpha AVE

1. Cost effectiveness 0.818 0.630
2. Product quality 0.789 0.603
3. On-time delivery 0.704 0.556
4. Volume flexibility 0.749 0.618
Table 2. Reliability analysis of manufacturing performance

To analyze the survey data, correlation analysis was performed. Means, standard deviations
and zero-order correlations for the study variables are shown in Table 3. Results show that all
the TPM practices were positively and significantly correlated with manufacturing
performance namely; cost effectiveness (p<0.01), product quality (p<0.01), on-time delivery
(p<0.01) and volume flexibility (p<0.01), except the correlation between TPM4 with cost
(p<0.05) and volume flexibility (p<0.05). Further, aggregate TPM shows positive and
significant correlation with manufacturing performance.

Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
1. TPM1 3.70 .42 1
2. TPM2 3.60 .47 .436** 1
3. TPM3 3.41 .55 .219** .434** 1
4. TPM4 3.08 .53 .264** .249** .214* 1
5. TPM5 3.20 .69 .400** .440** .297 **
.546** 1
6. TPM6 3.69 .47 .373** .470** .232** .204** .597** 1
7. TPM7 3.59 .57 .223** .564** .278** .399** .335** .338** 1
8. TPM8 3.49 .42 .372** .469** .249** .237** .292** .459 **
.418** 1
9.Aggregate TPM 3.52 .39 .641** .737** .556** .454** .725** .647** .536** .601** 1
10. Cost effectiveness 3.21 .66 .315** .519** .545** .207* .370** .482** .452** .457** .602** 1
11. Product quality 3.26 .63 .439** .578** .281** .340** .491** .493** .495** .488** .606 **
.728** 1
12. On-time delivery 3.12 .58 .212** .233** .232** .326** .425** .248** .359** .358** .434** .464** .520** 1
13. Volume flexibility 3.51 .52 .276** .326** .458** .213* .394** .637** .519** .426** .483** .536** .472** .339** 1
*** p<0.001, ** p<0.01, *p<0.05
Table 3. Correlations among the variables

Manufacturing Performance
TPM Cost Product On-time Volume
effectiveness Quality delivery flexibility
TPM1 .023* .148* .181** .139*
TPM2 .266** .214*** .198** .112*
TPM3 .363*** .117* .116* .252***
TPM4 .126* .240*** .171** .104*
TPM5 .148* .144* .295*** .153*
TPM6 .199** .112* .137* .603***
TPM7 .208** .184** .314*** .254***

13
 TPM8 .154* .155** .207** .199**
2
Adj R .493*** .475*** .253*** 0.494***
F 29.608 27.611 10.952 29.217
*** p<0.001, ** p<0.01, *p<0.05
Table 4. Regression model summary of TPM and manufacturing performances

Regression analysis was conducted to identify the effect of TPM practices on cost
effectiveness. The summary of the results are shown in Table 4. As can be seen in Table 4,
TPM has positive and significant relationship with cost effectiveness (Adj R2=0.493,
p<0.0001). This supports hypothesis one (H1). Both correlation and regression analysis
(Table 3 & 4) show that planned maintenance (TPM3) has the highest impact on the cost
effectiveness. TPM3 questions include sub areas such as an effective & efficient preventive
maintenance system, establishing preventive maintenance check sheets, and improvements on
time between failures & recovery time. When the effect of TPM practices on cost
effectiveness is considered, it may be due to the prevention and reduction of quality defects
which add a significant cost due to re-work, inspection, rejection etc. as well as reduction of
machine down time due to planned maintenance. Our results indicate that as indicated by
previous researchers (Cua et al., 2001; Ahuja and Khamba, 2007), it is not surprising that the
implementation of TPM that is meant to reduce variability and increase productivity will
reduce the overall operational cost significantly. Belekoukias et al. (2014) found that if TPM
is not implemented properly and effectively, it will fail to achieve the expected results, and it
will also incur an extra cost for the firm.

Regression analysis was conducted to identify the effect of TPM practices on product quality.
The summary of results is shown in Table 4. According to the results, TPM has positive and
significant relationship with product quality (Adj R2=0.475, p<0.001). Hence, hypothesis two
(H2 ) was supported by the data. Further, based on the correlation and regression results (table
3 & 4), individual improvement (TPM2; p<0.001) and quality maintenance (TPM4; p<0.001)
have a higher impact on product quality. Individual Improvement (TPM2) questions include
sub areas such as systematic identification & estimation of losses, working out loss structure
& loss mitigation, achieving improved system efficiency, and improving overall equipment
effectiveness. Quality Maintenance (TPM4) questions include sub areas such as achieving
zero defects, tracking & addressing equipment problems & root cause, and setting 3M
(Machine/Man/Material) conditions. The current research finding confirms the previous
research findings (Cua et al., 2006; Ahuja and Khamba, 2007) that the TPM have an impact
on quality. However, Belekoukias et al. (2014) found that TPM does not have an impact on

14
quality and highlighted that it is due to the fact that the firms have not implemented TPM
effectively.

Regression analysis was conducted to identify the effect of TPM practices on on-time
delivery. The summary of results is shown in Table 4. As can be seen in Table 4, TPM has
positive and significant relationship with on-time delivery (Adj R2=0.253, p<0.001).
Therefore, results support hypothesis three (H3). Further, results show that Training &
development (TPM5; p<0.001) and office TPM (TPM7; p<0.001) have the highest impact on
on-time delivery. Training and development (TPM5) questions include sub areas such as
imparting technological, quality control, interpersonal skills, multi-skilling of employees,
aligning employees to the organizational goals, and periodic skill evaluation and updating.
Office TPM (TPM7) questions included sub areas such as improving synergy between
various business functions, removing procedural hassles, focusing on addressing cost related
issues, and applying 5S in office & working areas. Current findings confirm the previous
studies (Womak et al., 1990; Womak and Jones, 2003; Cua et al., 2006; Ward and Zhou,
2006) who proposed the positive and significant impact of TPM on on-time delivery.
However, Belekoukias et al. (2014) found that TPM did not have impact on on-time delivery
and highlighted that it is due to the fact that the firms have not implemented TPM effectively.

Regression analysis was conducted to identify the effect of TPM practices on volume
flexibility. The summary of results is shown in Table 4. As can be seen in Table 4, TPM has
positive and significant relationship with volume flexibility (Adj R2=0.494, p<0.001). This
supports the hypothesis four (H4), Further, results show that planned maintenance (TPM3;
p<0.001), safety health & environment (TPM6; p<0.001) and office TPM (TPM7; p<0.001)
have the highest impact on volume flexibility. Planned Maintenance (TPM3) questions
include sub areas such as effective & efficient preventive maintenance system, establishing
preventive maintenance check sheets, and improvements on time between failures & recovery
time. Safety Health and Environment (TPM6) question included sub areas such as ensuring
safe work environment, providing appropriate work environment, and eliminating incidents
of injuries & accidents. Office TPM (TPM7) questions included sub areas such as improving
synergy between various business functions, removing procedural hassles, focus on
addressing the cost related issues, and applying 5S in office & working areas.

Volume flexibility has been used by various authors as a performance measure for TPM. Our
outcome confirms the findings of Cua et al. (2006) where there was a significant effect of
TPM practices and volume flexibility. However, contrary to our finding, Belekoukias et al.

15
(2014) found no statistical significance of the effect of TPM on volume flexibility and
highlighted that it is due to the fact that the firms have not implemented TPM effectively.

Conclusions, Implications and Further Research

This study fills a research gap by investigating the effect of TPM practices on commonly
used measures of manufacturing performance in textile and apparel manufacturing firms
namely; cost effectiveness, product quality, on-time delivery and volume flexibility. To fulfill
the objectives of the study, data was collected from 236 executives that had knowledge on the
TPM implementation. We have used widely accepted multiple parameters drawn from the
earlier reviewed literature to evaluate TPM implementation level, cost effectiveness, product
quality, on-time delivery and volume flexibility. The item scales were shown to be valid and
reliable in the Sri Lankan context. The data analysis was conducted using correlation and
regression to justify the findings. The results of this study indicated that TPM has significant
impact on improving cost effectiveness, product quality, on-time delivery and volume
flexibility. Further, all the 8 TPM practices also show positive relationship with the above
manufacturing performance indicators.

Implications for theory and practice

This study supports the general finding of the previous researchers (Al-Hassan, Chan and
Metcalfe, 2000; Cua et al., 2001; McKone et al., 2001; Ahuja and Khamba, 2008a; Ahuja
and Khamba, 2008b) that TPM has a positive impact on manufacturing performance even
though none of those studies were related to textile and apparel industry. TPM is still new to
textile and apparel manufacturing firms and its impact is not adequately addressed by
researchers. As a consequence, there is a dearth of studies investigating TPM in the textile
and apparel manufacturing context. When the demographic data of the company was
analyzed, it was observed that there were no significant differences between textile
manufacturing firms and apparel manufacturing firms in the level of TPM implementation.
Results indicate that both textile firms and apparel manufacturing firms identify the
importance of the TPM implementation. Sri Lankan apparel industry has already identified
the importance of backward integration for its competitiveness (Kelegama, 2005; Kapuge and
Smith, 2007). This is also a good indication since the backward integration of apparel firms
carries its good practices to their textile manufacturing firms.

16
When the cost effectiveness is considered, the current study supported the previous research
findings (Cua et al., 2006; McKone et al., 2001) that TPM implementation will reduce the
operational cost. There are several benefits that are expected to be obtained by implementing
TPM. The main benefits include increase in labor productivity, decrease in number of
equipment breakdowns, decrease in tool replacement time, increase in equipment operating
ratio, decrease in cost of defectives, and increase in inventory turnover ratio. As a result,
availability of machine hours and the total productivity will be increased and hence
operational cost will be decreased.

When the product quality is considered, the current study indicated that TPM implementation
will improve product quality. Literature indicated that there was a strong relationship
between TPM and product quality (Al-Hassan et al., 2000; Cua et al., 2006; McKone et al.,
2001). TPM implementation will improve machine maintenance and hence better machine
conditions, reduce machine changeovers and breakdowns. Therefore, defects due to poor
machine settings and machine breakdowns can be eliminated and the product quality will be
improved (Nakajima, 1988). Improved product quality will reduce reject and re-work. Due to
empowerment and awareness given to operators under TPM implementation, deviations of
machine setting and machine faults can be identified immediately. Timely action will be able
to stop making defect products immediately. Further, corrective and preventive actions can be
taken to reduce total machine downtime. Some researchers found TPM did not have impact
on quality (Belekoukias et al., 2014; Bhasin and Burcher, 2006; Ghosh, 2013). A possible
explanation about the lack of impact of TPM on quality found by Belekoukias et al. (2014)
was an ineffective implementation of TPM. Bhasin and Burcher (2006) stated that only 10%
or fewer organizations manage to implement TPM successfully. Ghosh (2013) found that
TPM has a negative impact on manufacturing performance. Belekoukias et al. (2014)
highlighted that in order for TPM to positively affect quality, a more strategic level approach
must be taken, as opposed to the traditional operational approach where only people from the
production and shop floor are involved in its application and management.

This study supports the previous findings (Cua et al., 2006; Ward and Zhou, 2006) that TPM
implementation has a positive and significant impact on on-time delivery. It is not surprising
that the implementation of TPM that is meant to reduce machine breakdown, machine down
time and re-work will improve on-time delivery. Further, highly reliable machines will
improve predictability on machine availability hence will improve on-time delivery.

17
Flexibility has been used by various authors as a performance measure for lean production.
Our results show that TPM implementation has a positive and significant relation with
volume flexibility. It confirms the finding of the previous research (Cua et al., 2006). The
number and mix of products being produced can largely affect volume flexibility. When
production involves low volume and high variety, it may be more difficult to manage on-time
delivery and flexibility because of the complexity involved in customizing the products.
However, Belekoukias et al. (2014) found lack of impact of TPM on flexibility measures and
found that the companies participating in that study have not achieved successful
implementation of TPM.

The study presented in this paper offers academics and practitioners a better understanding of
the relationship and impact of the TPM practices on the performances of their operations.
Thus practitioners will be able to make better and more effective decisions about the
implementation of TPM practices. Since the resource available for the organizations are
limited, findings of this study can be used as a guide to prioritize implementing the most
relevant TPM practices which leads to specific manufacturing performances for their
business strategies such as cost leadership and differentiation, etc. Further, this study
compliments the previous research performed in TPM implementation and its impact on
manufacturing performances.

Limitations and further research

This paper presents the findings of the effect of TPM on manufacturing performance of the
Sri Lankan textile and apparel manufacturing firms and how TPM can contribute better
maintenance and better performance. However, implementation of complicated concepts such
as TPM is always challenging. Cross sectional studies investigating how other operational
practices in lean production and employee involvement affects the relationship between TPM
and manufacturing performance could provide valuable data. Further, longitudinal
experimental studies and in-depth investigations into TPM implementations could provide the
nature of interactions among TPM and other lean production practices.

References

Ahuja, I.P.S. and Khamba, J.S. (2007), “An evaluation of TPM implementation initiatives in
an Indian manufacturing enterprise”, Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 13
No.4, pp. 338-352.

18
Ahuja, I.P.S. and Khamba, J.S. (2008a), “Justification of total productive maintenance
initiatives in Indian manufacturing industry for achieving core competitiveness”, Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol.19 No.5, pp. 645-669.

Ahuja, I.P.S. and Khamba, J.S. (2008b), “Total productive maintenance: literature review and
directions”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol.25 No.7, pp.
709-756.

Ahuja, I.P.S. and Khamba, J.S. (2008c), “Methodology and theory: assessment of
contributions of successful TPM initiatives towards competitive manufacturing”, Journal of
Quality in Maintenance Engineering, Vol.14 No.4, pp. 356-374.

Al-Hassan, K., Chan, J.F. and Metcalfe, A.V. (2000), “The role of total productive
maintenance in business excellence”, Total Quality Management, Vol.11 No.4-6, pp. 596-
601.

Barnes-Schuster, D., Bassok, Y. and Anupindi, R. (2002), “Coordination and flexibility in

supply contracts with options”, Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, Vol. 4
No.3, pp. 171-207.

Becker, S.W. (1993), “TQM does work: ten reasons why misguided efforts fail”,
Management Review, Vol. 82 No. 5, pp. 30-34.

Belekoukias, I., Garza-Reyes, J.A. and Kumar, V. (2014), “The impact of lean methods and
tools on the operational performance of manufacturing organizations”, International Journal
of Production Research, Vol. 52 No. 18, pp 5346-5366.

Bhadury, B. (2000), “Management of productivity through TPM”, Productivity, Vol. 41 No.

2, pp. 240-51.

Bhasin, S. and Burcher, P. (2006) "Lean viewed as a philosophy", Journal of Manufacturing

Technology Management, Vol. 17 No.1, pp.56 – 72.

Blanchard, B.S. (1997), “An enhanced approach for implementing total productive
maintenance in the manufacturing environment”, Journal of Quality in Maintenance
Engineering, Vol.3 No.2, pp. 69-80.

Boyer, K.K. and Leong, G.K. (1996), “Manufacturing flexibility at the plant level”, Omega
Vol.24 No.5, pp. 495-510.

19
Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison K. (2007), “Research Methods in Education”. 6th ed.
Oxford: Routledge.

Crawford, K.M., Blackstone Jr., J.H. and Cox, J.F., (1988). “A study of JIT implementation
and operating problems”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 26 No. 9, pp
1561–1568.

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, pp. 675-694.

Cua, K.O, McKone, K.E. and Schroeder R.G. (2006), “Improving performance through an
integrated manufacturing program”, Quality Management Journal, Vol.13 No.3, pp. 45–60.

Dixon, J.R. (1992), “Measuring manufacturing flexibility: an empirical investigation”,

European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 131–143.

D’Souza, D.E. and Williams, F.P. (2000), “Towards a taxonomy of manufacturing flexibility
dimensions”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol.18 No.5, pp. 577-593.

Eti, M. C., Ogaji S.O.T. and Prodert, S.D. (2004), “Implementing total productive
maintenance in Nigerian manufacturing industries”, Applied Energy, Vol.79, pp. 385-401.

Gollan, P.J. (2005), “High involvement management and human resource sustainability: the
challenges and opportunities”, Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, Vol.43 No.1, pp.
18–33.

Ghosh, M. (2013) "Lean manufacturing performance in Indian manufacturing plants",

Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp.113 – 122.

Gerwin, D. (1993), “Manufacturing flexibility: A strategic perspective”, Management

Science, Vol.39 No.4, pp. 395-410.

Gupta, Y.P. and Goyal, S. (1989), “Flexibility of manufacturing systems: concepts and
measurements”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol.43 No.2, pp. 119-135.

Hallgren, M. and Olhager, J. (2009), “Flexibility configurations: Empirical analysis of

volume and product mix flexibility”, Omega-International Journal of Management Science,
Vol.37 No.4, pp. 746-756.

20
Hutchison, J. and Das, S.R. (2007), “Examining a firm’s decisions with a contingency
framework for manufacturing flexibility” International Journal of Operations and
Production Management, Vol.27 No.2, pp. 159-180.

Jaaron, A. and Backhouse, C. (2011), “Value-adding to public services through the adoption
of lean thinking”, International Journal of Service Science, Management, Engineering, and
Technology, Vol.2 No.3, pp. 33-35

Jostes, R.S. and Helms, M.M. (1994), “Total productive maintenance and its link to total
quality management”, Work Study, Vol.43 No.7, pp. 18-20.

Kapuge, A.M. and Smith, M. (2007), “Management practices and performance reporting in
the Sri Lankan apparel sector”, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol.22 No.3, pp. 303-318.

Kelegama, S. (2005), “Readymade garment industry in Sri Lanka: Preparing to face the
global challenges”, Asia Pacific Trade and Investment review, Vol.1 No.1, pp. 51-67.

Masud, A.K.M., Khaled, A.A., Jannat, S., Khan A.K.M. S. A. and Islam, K.J. (2007), “Total
Productive Maintenance in Ready Made Garment Sector”, Journal of Mechanical
Engineering, Vol. 37, pp 62-65.

McAdam, R. and Mcgeough, F. (2000), “Implementing total productive maintenance in

multi-union manufacturing organizations: overcoming job demarcation”, Total Quality
Management, Vol.11 No.2, pp. 187-197.

McKone, K.E., Schroeder,R.G. and Cua, K.O. (2001), “The impact of total productive
maintenance practices on manufacturing performance”, Journal of Operations Management,
Vol.19, pp. 39-58.

Nahar, K., Islam, M., Rahman, M. and Hossain, M. (2012), “Evaluation of OEE for
Implementing Total Productive Maintenance (TPM) in Sewing Machine of a Knit Factory”,
Proceedings of the Global Engineering, Science and Technology Conference 28-29
December 2012, Dhaka, Bangladesh

Nakajima, S. (1988), Introduction to TPM: Total productive maintenance. Cambridge,

Massachusetts.

Ollila, A. and Malmipuro, M. (1999), “Maintenance has a role in quality”, The TQM
Magazine, Vol.11 No.1, pp. 17-21.

21
Riis, J., Luxhoj, J. and Thorsteinsson, U. (1997), “A situational maintenance model”,
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol.14 No.4, pp. 349-366.

Robson, C. (2002). Real World Research: A Resource for Social Scientists and Practitioner-
Researchers, Oxford, Blackwell Publishers.

Roup, J. (1999), “Moving beyond TPM to total plant reliability: redefining the concept to
optimize benefits”, Plant Engineering, Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 32-35.

Sakakibara S., Flynn B. B., Schroeder R. G. and Morris W. T. (1997), “The Impact of Just-in
time Manufacturing and its Infrastructure on manufacturing Performance”, Management
Science, Vol.43 No.9, pp. 1246-1257.

Salvador, F., Rungtusanatham, M., Forza, C. and Trentin, A. (2007), “Mix flexibility and
volume flexibility in a build-to-order environment: synergies and trade-offs”, International
Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol.27 No.11, pp. 1173-1191.

Schroeder, R.G. (1993), Operations Management, Decision Making in the Operations

Function. 4th edition, McGraw-Hill: New York.

Senthilkumar. B. and Sampath, V. R. (2012), “Garment Manufacturing through Lean

Initiative –An empirical study on T. Shirt Production unit ” European Journal of Scientific
Research, Vol.73 No. 2, pp 235-244.

Senthilkumar B. and Thavaraj, H.S. (2014), “An Evaluation of TPM Implementation in

Clothing Industry in India-A Lean Philosophy Based Approach”, International Journal of
Industrial Engineering & Technology (IJIET), Vol. 4 No. 6, pp. 11-18.

Sethi, A.K. and Sethi, S.P. (1990), “Flexibility in manufacturing: a survey”, International
Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 2 No.4, pp 289–328.

Shah, R. and Ward, P.T. (2003), “Lean manufacturing: context, practice bundles, and
performance”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 21, No.2, pp. 129–149.

Shah, R. and Ward, P.T. (2007), “Defining and developing measures of lean production”,
Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 25, pp. 785–805.

Ward, P. and H. Zhou. (2006), “Impact of Information Technology Integration and Lean/Just-
in-time Practices on Lead-time Performance”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 177–
203.

22
 Ward, P.T., Duray, R., Leong, G.K. and Sum, C.C. (1995), “Business environment,
operations strategy and performance: an empirical study of Singapore manufacturers”,
Journal of Operations Management, Vol.13 No.2, pp. 99–115.

Wireman, T. (2004), “Total Productive Maintenance”, Industrial Press Inc., New York, NY

Wickramasinghe, D. and Wickramasinghe, V. (2011a), “ Differences in organizational

factors by lean duration”. Operations Management Research, Vol. 4, pp. 111-126.

Wickramasinghe, D. and Wickramasinghe, V. (2011b), “Perceived organizational support,

job involvement and turnover intention in lean production in Sri Lanka”. The International
Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 55 No. 5-8, pp. 817-830.

Wickramasinghe, D. and Wickramasinghe, V. (2012), “Effects of perceived organizational

support on participation in decision making, affective commitment and job satisfaction in
lean production in Sri Lanka”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 23
No. 2, pp. 157-177

Wickramasinghe, G.L.D. (2015), “Effects of gender on work-related attitudes: study of lean

implemented textile and apparel manufacturing firms”, The Journal of The Textile Institute,
DOI: 10.1080/00405000.2015.1061795

Willmott, P. (1994), Total Productive Maintenance: The Western Way. Butterworth-Heinem

Womack, J., Jones, D.T. and Roos, D. (1990), The Machine that Changed the World, Rawson
Associates, New York, NY.ann: Oxford.

Womack, J. and Jones, D. T. (2003), Lean Thinking: Banish Waste and Create Wealth for
Your Corporation, 2nd Edition, Simon and Schuster, New York.

Yamashina, H. (2000), “Challenge to world-class manufacturing”, International Journal of

Quality and Reliability Management. Vol.17 No.2, pp. 132-143.

23

View publication stats