Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management

Paris, France, July 26-27, 2018

Evaluating the Impact of Total Productive Maintenance

elements on a Manufacturing Process
Mthetheleli Joseph Kwaso
Post Graduate School of Engineering Management
University of Johannesburg, South Africa
jsphmahlatsi@gmail.com

Arnesh Telukdarie
Post Graduate School of Engineering Management
University of Johannesburg, South Africa
arnesht@uj.ac.za

Abstract

Variety of Process improvement tools exist; with each having a similar goal which is to enhance
the performance of the business. Total Productive Maintenance (Total Productive Maintenance) is not
only a maintenance strategy, but also a business improvement tool that companies use to remain
competitive whilst improving customer’s satisfaction and reliability.

The purpose of this research is to understand the impact of the TPM elements and their performance roles
on the facility as a whole.

A South African manufacturing firm in the process of implementing TPM is studied, to assess the
progress made during the implementation process and the learnings that come with it. The data collected
before and after TPM implementation at the company used in this case study is used to calculate the
availability, performance efficiency, quality rate, and the overall equipment effectiveness (OEE).

The result showed that OEE consistently improved its value above Eighty percent (80%) from
implementation. This improvement indicates the TPM pillars capability in enhancing business,
underpinning these elements as crucial for a successful implementation.

Keywords: TPM (Total Productive Maintenance), OEE (Overall Equipment Effectiveness), Maintenance
Strategy, Business Improvement, Manufacturing

1. Introduction
Most manufacturing processes are not cost effective in operation and support, this is due to low running capacities
that result in low productivity and manufacturing costs escalation (Sandelands, 1994). One of the contributing
factors to this negative outcome is ineffective maintenance practices on the plant equipment. Maintenance practices
ensure that the plant is available to operate, safe to work in, produces right product quality, and cost effectiveness.
Maintenance costs constitutes a significant portion of the operating budget of companies in the manufacturing sector
(Tsarouhas, 2007). TPM as a philosophy is therefore a collection of practices and techniques that aims at
maximizing the effectiveness of business facilities and processes where all are responsible. A Variety of process
improvement tools exist with each of these having a similar goal, that improves the performance of the business.
Process improvement tools include but are not limited to Total Quality Management (TQM), Lean manufacturing,
Six Sigma, Business process re-engineering, International Organization for Standardization(ISO) and Total
Productive Maintenance (TPM). TPM is therefore not only a maintenance strategy, but a business improvement tool
that companies can use to remain competitive and improve customer satisfaction, and reliability.

546
Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management
Paris, France, July 26-27, 2018

The methodology or philosophy of TPM is implemented through basic practices known as TPM elements (Pillars).
These pillars include Housekeeping (5S), Autonomous Maintenance (AM), Kaizen, Planned Maintenance, Training,
Office TPM, Safety Health and Environment, (Wakjira and Ajit, 2012).

The purpose of this research is to understand the impact of the TPM elements on the implementation process. It will
further help to identify the roles played by each of the pillars on the performance of the philosophy as a whole. The
benefits of TPM implementation have been visible at various plants which have taken on the philosophy. Companies
that are successful in adopting TPM have reported a reduction in breakdowns, lost production, setup time
requirement, cost per maintenance unit, and lastly capacity increment (McKone, Schroeder, and Cua, 2002). A
considerable number of companies have failed in adopting TPM, which failure has been attributed to difficulties
faced in implementing TPM that include, lack of management support and understanding, lack of sufficient training
and failure to allow sufficient time for evolution (Kocher, Kumar, Singh, and Dhillon, 2012).

1.1 Components of TPM

In order to achieve sustainability, efficiency and effectiveness of the manufacturing facility by the TPM team, seven
(7) practical components and activities centred on people involvement and enhancement becomes necessary.

5S (Sort, Set in Order, Shine, Standardize, and Sustain)

This constitutes the best way to organise and manage workspace and eliminating wastes through better thoughts and
focus. It provides and improves maintenance systems to support the facilities. The successful execution of TPM
requires the adoption of 5S at the preparatory stage of the philosophy, giving it enough attention. Originating in
Japan in 1982, 5S concept achieved substantial results in industrial and service sectors. It aims at preventing losses,
with achievable result of safety incidents prevention, delays reduction, and enhanced productivity, (Nilipour, and
Jamshidian, 2005). According to Tsarouhas (2007), failing to take 5S seriously leads to 5D (Delays, Defects,
Dissatisfied customers, Declining profits, and Demoralized employees). For 5S to be successful the major
contributing factor is the active participation by the staff in all 5S related activities, and also important to the
sustainability of 5S is proper training for the staff on the concept of 5S and its importance so that each personnel
may understand the significance of the role he/she needs to play (Moradim, Abdollahzadeh, and Vakili, 2011).
According to [10] implementing 5S accurately and properly forms a foundation for the implementation of TPM.

Figure 1.Practical Components of TPM (Source: lecture 2004)

Restore, maintain and continuously improve the existing facilities

This includes the role of both maintenance and operation personnel to monitor effectiveness of the machines, inspect
points, analyse breakdowns, carry out preventive maintenance, major repairs, and to maintain basic conditions to
prevent deteriorations.

Detect and eliminate faults and problems

Early detection and elimination of faults devoid the following: Slow the process down, cause inconsistency, rejects,
safety hazards, make machinery dangerous to operate, make work place dirty, oily and smelly.

Establish, monitor and improve process effectiveness

547
Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management
Paris, France, July 26-27, 2018

Notably, this aids in reduction, recognition and measure of the 6 big losses attributed to availability, performance
and quality: breakdowns losses due to failures, speed, idling, minor stoppage, start-up losses scrap and rework
losses.
Identify and eliminate inherent faults
The need to discover either inherent design and manufacturing of machinery faults and that attributed to operational
methods with a provision for proposing a project with a skilled small team to focus on inherent faults to improve
overall effectiveness.

Purchase and install facilities that provide best return

This component states that selection of manufacturing machines must conform with the TPM philosophy in a
professional and structured way to meet the present and future need of the business and to achieve global
competitive performance.

1.2 TPM pillars

These are ways of managing change and a rigorous methodology to sustain common future. It is the change streams
responsible for the development of systems, processes, capabilities and standards with People. It applies appropriate
problem-solving techniques to form a unified and cohesive structure that spans both levels and functions to achieve
common purpose (Sandelands, 1994). These elements constitute key measures for operation and maintenance and
employs elimination of failures, zero defects, zero accidents, zero Break-downs, no wastes and loss (Campbell, and
Reyes-Picknell, 2006).

Autonomous Maintenance
Autonomous Maintenance is based on assigning operators the responsibility of minor maintenance activities
required to keep the plant equipment in the best shape possible, and this will give the specialized maintenance staff
more time to attend to issues that are more complex (Wakjira, and Ajit, 2012). In Kocher, et al. (2012)
Autonomous Maintenance and Focused Improvement Pillars of TPM is carried out in a big volume beverage
bottling plant which results of this implementation showed closely how much of an impact it had on the
organisation. With the involvement of employees across all levels of the organisation, teams were formed which
were responsible for executing all the tasks required for the successful implementation of these two pillars. To better
understand the changes brought about the implementation of these pillars, Kocher, et al. (2012) calculated the OEE
using data collected over a period of six months from varying sources that include maintenance records, production
personnel, and daily production data. According to Kocher, et al. (2012) the successful implementation of the
Autonomous Maintenance pillar and Focused Improvement showed an improvement in the production output
indicated by the OEE rising from 75,17 % to 85,25 % with no customer complains and zero accidents among other
improvements resulting from the implementation of these two pillars.

TPM HOUSE
Zero
Zero
Zero
Defect
Accident
Breakdown
Waste

Safety Quality Cost Productivity Quality

Focus Improvement (Kobes-kaizen)

(Maintenance
(Cross Functional Team, Engineers

Department)
& Safety
Management
(Production and Operators)

Development
Autonomous Maintenance

(Administrative)
Management
Control)
Maintenance

Health
Logistics
Personnel
(EQM) )
Maintenance
Training
Equipment
(Quality
Quality
Training
Office and
Environmental
(Education
Early
Planned

548
Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management
Paris, France, July 26-27, 2018

5S, RCM, Planning and Visual Controls & predictive Work Organisation
Scheduling, Set up reduction Tech. Optimization

Total Employee Organization. Key Management Principles / Senior Leadership Involvement

Figure 2:Pillars of TPM(Source. Author adapted from [7])

Focused Improvement/Kaizen
According to. Kocher, et al. (2012), Kaizen is the third step in TPM implementation, and the word Kaizen is derived
from two Japanese words ‘Kai’ and ‘zen’ meaning change, and better or good respectively. This tallies, with the
definition from (Eti, Ogaji, and Probert, 2004) meaning “continuous improvement” or “change for the best”. Kaizen
according to Wakjira, and Ajit, (2012) delivers minor improvements continuously in the organisation where all staff
partake, achievable through little or no monetary investment but through Kaizen tools systematic programs. Kaizen
enhances TPM goal by maximizing the equipment effectiveness, attempting to eliminate all losses through its
activities (Mehta, Singh, Gohil, Shah, and Desai, 2003). Notable six major losses damaging to the progress of
production systems according to Ahuja and Khamba, (2008) are equipment failure losses, adjustment losses, idling
and minor stoppage losses, defect and rework losses, and start-up losses.

Planned Maintenance
This pillar aims to ensure that the equipment does not breakdown frequently, and that customers’ expectations are
met by supplying them with good products and just in time. Maintenance grouped into four according their functions
which are Preventive maintenance, Breakdown maintenance, predictive maintenance and corrective maintenance.
Planned maintenance brings about a proactive culture towards maintenance and supports the autonomous
maintenance pillar, by enforcing training for operators by skilled maintenance individuals so that they are able to
maintain their equipment (Mehta, et al, 2015). Specifically, planned maintenance aims for zero equipment failure
and breakdowns, and the improvement of reliability and maintainability by 50% and the reduction of maintenance
costs by 20% (Wakjira, and Ajit, 2012). During TPM implementation the maintenance department allocate more
time and resources to carrying out preventative maintenance duties. The implementation of autonomous
maintenance will assist in this regard as machine operators will carry-out basic maintenance tasks thus affording the
maintenance staff more time to focus on more challenging issues as listed on the maintenance schedule (Thun,
2006).

Quality maintenance
The objective of the Quality Maintenance (QM) Pillar is to satisfy the customers through consistent supply of
products that meet their specifications, without defects (Wakjira, and Ajit, 2012). The pillar aims to lower in-process
defects, and ultimately achieve a zero defect target (Ahuja, and Khamba, 2008). Vardhan, Gupta, and Gangwar
(2015) single out the QM as one of the most critical amongst the other pillars; ensuring productivity improvement
and customers’ satisfaction. The execution of this pillar is very systematic and similar to focused improvement.
Once the equipment and its parts causing defects, are identified it is safeguarded to prevent any further damage to
the product quality. This pillar addresses other concerns potential to hinder the required quality targets (Wakjira, and
Ajit, 2012). Vardhan, et al (2015) closely monitored the performance of the QM after the implementation of all the
TPM pillars. The QM pillar was in this case tasked with achieving certain targets, that includes elimination of
packaging defects, elimination of customer complaints and the elimination of product defects as these were the three
quality issues that the company was predominantly faced with prior to its implementation.

Training and Education

Workforce is a priceless asset which systematic training can be tailored according to needs. Training analyses is
done in accordance with the department need and availability of resource. According to [26] the training and
development improve the employee skill, morale, and expertise. It elevates performance at to the highest level of
efficiency and dedication. In (Kocher, et al., 2012) studies show TPM implementation and the challenges attributed

549
Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management
Paris, France, July 26-27, 2018

with this process, and unpins it as the most important step in TPM implementation. This TPM element encourages
the personnel specialisation, multitasking and multi skills devoid of inexperience in the execution of duties (Kocher,
et al., 2012).

Safety, Health and Environment

This creates a workable safe healthy area minimal environmental damage resulting from organisational processes
and procedures. Safety is at the top of the priority list in the plant environment. If properly implemented it achieves
zero accidents, zero health damages and zero fires (Mehta, et al., 2015). The success of this element depends on 6
factors identified in Fernández-Muñiz, et al., (2009) Implemented correctly this pillar results in a number of both
direct and indirect benefits; lower insurance premiums, fewer accidents, less damages and lower medical and legal
costs, overall company’s good performance indicated by its higher productivity and efficiency, good products
quality and a better image enhancement. Negligence of this TPM element results to unsafe workplace; accidents,
morale and motivation deterioration, and poor customer and public relations, (Fernández-Muñiz, et al., 2009).

Logistics and Office Administration

This pillar is interlinked with the other TPM elements but centred on people a reduction of waste. It is all about
work organisation and leadership involvement, implementation of and management of the company’s rule, staff
warfare, motivation, code of conducts and ethics. If implemented correctly this pillar result in a number of benefits.

Early Equipment and Product Management

This TPM pillar is grouped into two parts: early equipment and early product management. It aims to implement
new products and processes with vertical ramp up and minimised development lead time incorporating
improvements into the next generation of product and equipment design. While the first group ensures minimal
equipment downtime (zero breakdowns) by introducing a loss and defect free process, considering optimisation and
maintenance costs from commissioning onwards, (Owen, 2014). The role of early product management with teams
working on simultaneous activities is to shorten development lead times, so that vertical start up can be achieved
with zero quality loss (zero defects).

1.3 OEE Concept

TPM uses the Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE) to measure both the performance of productive systems and
degree of implementation success. The main objective of TPM is to improve the OEE, (Ahuja, and Khamba, 2008)
which strength lies in the detection of losses and it highlights areas that need to be improved upon. OEE has not only
developed as a backbone of the TPM philosophy but also of other techniques employed in asset management
programs such as lean manufacturing, six sigma and world class manufacturing (Iannone, and Nenni, 2013). OEE is
calculated by obtaining the product availability of the equipment, performance efficiency of the process and the rate
of quality of the products (Dal, Tugwell, and Greatbanks, 2000). TPM has standards of 90 percent availability, 95
percent performance efficiency and 99 percent rate of quality (Levitt, 1996). An overall 85 percent benchmark is
considered as a world class performance (Õrjan, 1998).

2. Case Study
The unit of analysis is defined as a basis for the case, which may be an organisation, a team or a department within
an organisation (Kruger, and Welman, 2002). The unit of analysis used for this research is a South African
manufacturing firm, which supplies packaging products to beverage companies across Africa. The case in question
is currently in the process of implementing TPM in one of its biggest plants in South Africa. The TPM
implementation kicked off in the beginning of 2017. The research studies the impact that the TPM pillars have on
the implementation and the manufacturing process. To allow the researcher to study the impact of each of the
elements on the implementation process closely, and on the manufacturing process, its processing plant is studied.
Prior to the current implementation of TPM in the plant some TPM elements were partially practiced in the plant.
These include planned maintenance, quality maintenance, autonomous maintenance and 5S principles, therefore
suggesting that TPM had been implemented previously. The practice of the mentioned TPM elements were not
bringing the desired results and this led to the re-implementation of the process as a whole to try and address the
current business challenges. Data is collected mainly for the first 8 months of the year January to August, where
January to May was used as a baseline for the research. During this period the implementation was not carried out in
full from June to August some practices were consistent, that will be analysed further.

550
Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management
Paris, France, July 26-27, 2018

The research focused on the implementation process, and assessing the impact that the implemented pillars have on
the following Key Performance Index (KPI):
 Downtime: Downtime data will enable us to calculate the availability, and so asses the effectiveness of the
implementation of the autonomous maintenance pillar.
 Quality: Process defects resulting from the manufacturing process under study will be recorded, and used
to calculate the quality rate. Data obtained from quality rate calculation the role played by the quality
maintenance pillar and related quality control measures will be assessed.
 Productivity: Productivity data will be collected and used to calculate the performance efficiency. The
performance efficiency will indicate the degree to which the process is being effectively utilized. With the
analysis of the performance efficiency, the impact of the focused improvement efforts will be assessed
which aimed at improving the process continuously.

2.1 TPM Implementation

The implementation began with a TPM kick-off meeting which was held to officially launch the program, this was
done in the presence of the entire staff and other Stakeholders. After the kick-off meeting training programmes were
rolled out in the form of boot camps, to encourage teamwork and to familiarise the staff with the philosophy of
TPM. The training was also practical as the participants were involved in activities that aimed to demonstrate how
the first set of pillars which are visual management (VM), 5S, autonomous maintenance and focused improvement
will be implemented in each work area. Following the training the first set of pillars were rolled out in different
work stations.

One of the short-falls of the previous implementation, was the lack of active participation in sustaining the pillars
and ensuring that the process is continuous and it ultimately becomes a day to day culture and the way people work.
Also lack of management support and involvement on day-to-day challenges relating to the process, paying attention
mostly to major breakdowns but not to the issues which could potentially lead to these breakdowns. Active
participation among employees from different departments in all TPM related activities is essential for the success
of the program.

The current implementation encourages participation from all employees through the use of GEMBA walks. The
walks take place three times a week, and every area has a GEMBA team that is composed of production staff,
maintenance, admin and management. Every area has a Visual Management (VM) board that shows the one point
lessons (OPLs), 5S journey, high risk areas, top 3 losses of the area and the Kaizen projects implemented to get rid
of the losses, and lastly KPIs such as downtime, spoilage and quality associated with the area.

3. Results
This section presents the results obtained following the collection of data. The unit of analysis houses three
manufacturing lines, and for the purpose of this research a processing plant in one of the three lines is studied
closely, and relevant data was collected. The researcher will look closely at KPIs such as the downtime which will
be used to calculate the availability. The quality rate and the performance efficiency are also calculated to obtain the
OEE. This allows for tracking the progress made as a result of the TPM implementation.

Downtime
Downtime losses are among the six big losses contributing to production process running at low efficiencies. The
data collected includes electrical and mechanical breakdowns, unplanned and planned maintenance, general
equipment failure and any set-up and adjustment. The strategic outcome of implementing TPM is the minimal
occurrence of sudden machine breakdowns that get in the way of production and result in losses (Ahuja, and
Khamba, 2008). Below figure 3 presents the downtime data for the 8 months, where red is before implementation
and green is after implementation.

551
Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management
Paris, France, July 26-27, 2018

Downtime
250

200

150
Time (hr)

100

50

0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
Month

Figure 3:Downtime Data

Although the implementation is new positive results are starting to show, with the highest losses after
implementation in June at 102,81 hours a significant improvement from a peak of 217,6 hours before
implementation. Another positive is that in July and August not only were the downtime losses at their lowest at
15,5 and 13,7 hours respectively.

Availability
Using the downtime data collected the availability was calculated for each month using the following equation:

𝐴 𝑖 𝑖𝑖 𝑦 𝐴 = ×
ℎ

where the: Net loss= Total good hrs – Total loss

552
Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management
Paris, France, July 26-27, 2018

Availability
100

95

90

85
Availability %

80

75

70

65

60
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
Month

Figure 4: Availability data

According to (Levitt, 1996) TPM has standards of 90% availability for a plant to be considered a world class
manufacturing facility. Figure 4 above shows how difficult it has been to achieve this value consistently, being
achieved only in March before implementation when the availability was 95,3%. In May the availability was at its
lowest at 69,8%. After the implementation in the three months recorded the lowest availability value was 85,7%
obtained in June an improvement from the 69,8% obtained in May and closer to the world class manufacturing
benchmark of 90%. Availability saw a significant improvement in the month of July and August at 97,9% and
98,1% respectively.

Quality Rate
The quality rate was calculated using the equation below:

𝑖 − 𝑖 𝑖
𝑖𝑦 = ×
𝑖

Table 1: Quality rate

Month Quality Rate

January 99.87
February 99.84
March 99.90
April 99.68
May 99.75
June 99.89
July 99.87
August 99.77

553
Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management
Paris, France, July 26-27, 2018

The rate of quality or the quality rate is an important KPI in manufacturing, as it allows us to track the number of
defects that have resulted from the manufacturing of good products. A reduced yield and defects in a process form
part of the six big losses, which if not eliminated or controlled can cost the company millions of Rands. Table 1
above presents the results of a calculation of the quality rate before and after the implementation of TPM at the unit
of analysis. According to [14] the world class manufacturing standard for the rate of quality is 99%. As it can be
seen from table 1, the quality rate has consistently been above the 99% before and after implementation.

Performance Efficiency
The performance efficiency was calculated using the equation below:

−[ + ]
= ×
Where the: = ℎ −

Perfomance Efficiency
100

95
PE

90

85

80
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
Month

Figure 5: Performance Efficiency data

Idling and minor stoppage form part of the six big losses, and they impact the performance efficiency directly. The
performance efficiency world class manufacturing benchmark is set at 95% (Levitt, 1996). This target has not been
reached before implementation, as indicated by figure 5 above. Although the 95% target has not been reached before
implementation, the results indicate that the plant in question has come close to achieving this target month after
month. With the lowest performance efficiency value at 92,5% in February and the highest 94,8% in January. The
target was reached in every month after implementation.

OEE
Now that we have obtained the availability, quality rate and the performance efficiency we can proceed to calculate
the OEE using the equation below:

=𝐴 𝑖 𝑖𝑖𝑦 𝐴 × 𝑖 𝑖 𝑦 × 𝑖 𝑦

554
Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management
Paris, France, July 26-27, 2018

OEE
100

95

90

85

80
OEE

75

70

65

60

55

50
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
Month

Figure 6: OEE data

TPM uses OEE to measure the performance of productive systems and again as a measure of the success of its
implementation. The main objective of TPM is to improve the OEE (Ahuja, and Khamba, 2008) The world class
performance benchmark for the OEE is 85% (Õrjan, 1998). This value is reached only once before implementation
with the OEE value of 89,9% in March as shown in figure 6 above. The lowest values of the OEE before
implementation were in February and May at 67,6% and 64,6% respectively. With the implementation we start to
see a difference in the OEE. Firstly, in the three months of the implementation the lowest value is 81,5% as shown
in figure 6 above, which is higher than the lower values in February and May before implementation. Also in July
and August we do not only see the OEE reaching record values for the year at 93,3% and 93% respectively, but the
OEE world class performance benchmark being achieved for 2 consecutive months indicating a sign of consistency .

4. Analysis of Results
Maintenance is carried out so that a physical system continues to work properly and fulfils its design intention. The
implementation of autonomous maintenance instills a sense of ownership to the operators over the equipment, and
maintenance staff ensuring the equipment optimal operation (Kocher, et al, 2012). Outcome of this pillar is a
reduced downtime, and improved availability as the system recorded no frequent breakdowns. The reduced
downtime after TPM implementation illustrated in figure 3, and an improved availability (figure 4) therefore
indicate success in the implementation of autonomous maintenance, with the teamwork of maintenance operators
and personnel ensuring that the equipment is always at its best condition.

Although the current implementation quality maintenance pillar is not released, the quality rate is consistently high
before and after implementation of the pillars as illustrated by table 1. This can be attributed to the quality practices
carried out with the previous implementation that ensure in-process defects were minimally kept. This has been
achieved and sustained through the correct and consistent quality practices on the plant level . Kaizen according to
(Wakjira, and Ajit, 2012) brings minor improvements continuously in the organisation with all staff being part
thereof. The element aims to maximize the equipment effectiveness, by attempting to eliminate all losses through its
activities (Mehta, Singh, Gohil, Shah, and Desai, 2003). The minor improvements resulting in the minimization of
minor stops, brought a positive impact on the results (figure 5) giving a clear picture of the performance efficiency

555
Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management
Paris, France, July 26-27, 2018

after implementation. The performance efficiency world class manufacturing target has been achieved for the three
months, with the highest value achieved in July at 95,4% and the lowest in August at 95,1%.

TPM elements are known to yield positive results when implemented correctly in manufacturing processes. Kocher,
et al (2012) record improvement in the OEE that increased from 75,17% and 85,25% after the implementation of the
autonomous maintenance pillar and focused improvement. These authors reported zero customer complaints and
zero accidents. Similarly, this case study results show implementation of the foundational practices of TPM leading
and managing change, environment, health and safety, teamwork, 5S, visual management, focused improvement and
autonomous maintenance as a pillar is a consequence of consistent and an improved OEE having the lowest value at
81,5% after implementation as shown in figure 6 and the highest at 93,3%, as opposed to before implementation
(figure 6) with the lowest OEE value at 64,6% and the highest at 89,9%.

5. Conclusion
The literature studied reveals that TPM implementation takes place through a series of steps known as TPM pillars
or elements. TPM is a team based approach that thrives on the existence of these pillars [9]. The Japan Institute of
Plant Maintenance defines TPM as an 8-pillar house or approach, but this number can change depending on the
culture of the company, and organisational needs. TPM elements are very crucial for successful implementation.
The elements selected for the implementation, need to address the challenges at the organisation. The TPM elements
should be selected based on the organisational goals, in addition to allocating enough time for the actual
implementation. Each of the TPM elements constitutes a crucial step to the overall success of the implementation of
TPM, as each element addresses certain losses in the manufacturing process or the organisation to perform
efficiently in all its departments.

References
Ahuja, I.P.S., and Khamba, J.S, Total productive maintenance: Literature review and directions, International
Journal of quality and reliability management, vol. 25, no. 7, pp.709-756, 2008.
Campbell, J. and Reyes-Picknell, J., Uptime: Strategies for Excellence in Maintenance Management, 2nd Edition,
Productivity Press, New York, 2006.
Dal, B., Tugwell, P. and Greatbanks, R, Overall equipment effectiveness as a measure of operational improvement–
a practical analysis, International journal of operations & production management, vol. 20, no.12, pp.1488-
1502, 2000.
de Ron, A.J. and Rooda, J.E, Equipment effectiveness: OEE revisited. IEEE transactions on semiconductor
manufacturing, vol.18, no.1, pp.190-196, 2005.
Eti, M.C., Ogaji, S.O.T., and Probert, S.D, Implementing total productive maintenance in Nigerian manufacturing
industries. Applied energy, vol. 79, no. 4, pp.385-401, 2004.
Fernández-Muñiz, B., Montes-Peón, J.M. and Vázquez-Ordás, C.J, Relation between occupational safety
management and firm performance, Safety science, vol. 47, no.7, pp980-991, 2009.
Iannone, R. and Nenni, M.E, Managing OEE to Optimize Factory Performance Citeseer, 2013.
Kocher, G., Kumar, R., Singh, A. and Dhillon, S.S, An approach for total productive maintenance and factors
affecting its implementation in a manufacturing environment, International Journal on Emerging Technologies,
vol. 3, no. 1, pp.4-47, 2012.
Kruger, S.J. and Welman, J.C, Research methodology for the business and administrative sciences, 2nd Edition,
Oxford University Press, London, 2002.
Levitt, J, Managing factory maintenance, 2nd Edition. Industrial Press, NewYork, USA, 1996.
McKone, K.E., Schroeder, R.G. and Cua, K.O, The impact of total productive maintenance practices on
manufacturing performance. Journal of Operations Management, vol. 19, no. 1, pp.39-58, 2001.
Mehta, D.U., Singh, R., Gohil, A.M., Shah, D.B. and Desai, S, Total productive maintenance (TPM) implementation
in a machine shop: A case study, Procedia Engineering, 51592-599, 2003.
Moradi, M., Abdollahzadeh R and Vakili, A, Effects of implementing 5S on Total Productive Maintenance: A case
in Iran. In Quality and Reliability, IEEE International Conference, pp. 41-45, 2011.
Õrjan L. Measurement of overall equipment effectiveness as a basis for TPM activities, International Journal of
Operation and Production Management, vol.18, no.5, pp.495-507, 1998.

556
Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management
Paris, France, July 26-27, 2018

Owen C. Total Productive Maintenance, Industry Forum. Business Excellence Through Inspired People, Industry
Forum Ltd, Birmingham, United Kingdom, pp. 1-28. 2014.
Sandilands, E. Industrial training, and quality initiatives, Journal of European Industrial Training, vol 18, no.7, pp.1-
40, 1994.
Singh, G.B. Keeping the wheels turning: Total Productive Maintenance, Manufacturing Engineer, vol. 85, no.1,
pp.32-35, 2006.
Thun, J, Maintaining Preventive Maintenance, and Maintenance Prevention: Analysing the dynamic implications of
total productive maintenance. System Dynamics Review, vol.22, no.2, pp163-179, 2006.
Tsarouhas, P, Implementation of total productive maintenance in the food industry: A case study, Journal of quality
in maintenance engineering, vol.13, no.1, pp.5-18, 2007.
Vardhan, S., Gupta, P. and Gangwar, V, Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, IEEE International
Conference proceedings, Delhi India, 2015.
Visser, K, Practical Components of TPM, Maintenance Management Lecture Note IIB 801, Graduate School of
Engineering Management and Technology, University of Pretoria, 2014.
Wakjira, W., and Ajit, P.S.M, Total productive maintenance: A case study in the manufacturing industry, Global
Journal of Research in Engineering, no.12, pp1-G, 2012.

Biography
Mthetheleli Kwaso holds a Bachelor of Technology in Chemical Engineering from the University of Johannesburg,
and is due to graduate for his MPhil in Engineering Management from the same university. Mr. Kwaso has
experience in precious metal refining, FMCG (Fast Moving Consumer Goods) manufacturing, and industrial water
treatment. His research interests include renewable sources of energy Biogas to be more specific, business
improvement tools, and industrial engineering.

557