Implementing TPM

The North American Experience

Andrew Ginder, Alan Robinson, Charles J. Robinson

• Publisher: Productivity Press
• Year: 2020
• Print ISBN: 9781563270871
• eBook ISBN: 9781000162073
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Operations
• Index: Business

This book provides an understanding of the complexity and comprehensiveness of the total productive maintenance (TPM) process. It supplements works by Japanese authors with guidance and detail on how the TPM process relates to North American plants or facilities.

1
Introduction

What Is Total Productive Maintenance?

The term “total productive maintenance” was first used in the late 1960s by Nippondenso, a supplier of electrical parts to Toyota. At that time it was a slogan for their plant improvement theme, “productive maintenance with total employee participation.” In 1971, Nippondenso received the Distinguished Plant Award (the PM Prize) from the Japan Institute of Plant Maintenance (JIPM). Nippondenso was the first plant to receive the award as a result of implementing TPM, and this marked the beginning of JIPM’s association with the improvement methodology. Eventually Seiichi Nakajima, a vice chairman of JIPM, became known as the father of TPM, since he provided implementation support to hundreds of plants, mostly in Japan.

Nakajima describes TPM as “productive maintenance carried out by all employees through small group activities.” He considers it an equal partner to total quality management in the attainment of world class manufacturing. According to TPM principles, the responsibility for optimizing equipment lies not just with the maintenance department, but with all plant personnel. For the purposes of this book, TPM is defined as follows:

TPM is a plant improvement methodology which enables continuous and rapid improvement of the manufacturing process through use of employee involvement, employee empowerment, and closed-loop measurement of results.¹

Let’s consider this definition in more detail.

TPM Is a Plant Improvement Methodology

TPM is a method for bringing about change. It is a set of structured activities that can lead to improved management of plant assets when properly performed by individuals and teams. Nakajima’s twelve-step process for TPM implementation is structured in a “cookbook” format. If followed successfully, those steps will drive performance gains and change plant culture and environment. The culture of a plant does not evolve solely from TPM, but may also be a reflection of other improvement processes that are underway such as total quality management, formal benchmarking, or continuous flow manufacturing (CFM). TPM is not necessarily the optimal improvement strategy for everyone. Later in this chapter, guidelines will be given for determining whether TPM is an appropriate fit for individual plants.

TPM Enables Continuous and Rapid Improvement

A critical aspect of TPM is that improvements should be rapid as well as continuous. Today’s marketplace requires new paradigms. The fable of the race between the hare and tortoise has to be modified. Current and future winners in industry will combine the quickness and speed of the rabbit with the perseverance of the tortoise. To attain or maintain a leadership position in industry, a company must continuously improve at a rate that is faster than that of its competition. Performance targets must be dynamic, not static. If a company sets goals to reach current performance levels of their best-in-class competitor in two years, they will still lag behind, since their competition will have improved over that same time period. To be best in class, a company must leapfrog its competition by setting goals beyond where their competition is projected to be.

Employee Involvement

Employee involvement is a necessary part of the TPM process. The goal is to tap into the expertise and creative capabilities of the entire plant or facility through the use of small group activities. The total involvement of plant personnel generates pride and job satisfaction as well as financial gains for the organization. Despite the advent of self-managing teams this last decade, true employee involvement is still new and untried at many North American companies. Fear exists over how people’s jobs will be impacted from this new management style, and doubts and uncertainties strongly infect both middle management and plant floor personnel. To ensure successful employee involvement, a systematic approach must be designed in which all steps are clearly defined and communicated to involved parties.

Employee Empowerment

TPM requires employees to take a more active role in decision making and to accept responsibility for the plant and its physical condition. They have a heightened role in defining their job content, along with work systems and procedures. The intent is that each employee takes pride in plant equipment and is proud to be associated with the facility. For example, JIPM recommends that management adopt the theme of “My Plant” to increase the level of autonomous maintenance.

Employee empowerment does not mean that all decisions are made by individual workers or small groups of employees. That leads to chaos. Historically, upper management has played the key role in the decision-making process. TPM increases workers’ roles in providing input and in making tactical decisions. The most difficult aspect of empowering employees is determining which decisions should be made by management, by workers, or by a combination of the two. Most companies err in not giving workers enough authority, and the proper balance can best be found through trial and error.

Closed-Loop Measurement of Results

North American plants typically emphasize performance measures that are related to production and financial results. Numbers are tracked, reported by accountants, and made available to select members of the organization. There are two problems associated with classical results measurement. First, the results are not reported to all involved parties. Second, results that are reported do not effectively measure performance. In TPM, the plant establishes “key performance indicators” that measure performance relative to plant goals and objectives. These key performance indicators measure results in areas over which the plant has control. Typically they include availability, quality, productivity, and cost efficiency, as well as measures of the effectiveness of the improvement process itself. The indicators are reported in a closed-loop manner back to the individuals who have the power to impact them. Thus information is placed in the hands of plant floor employees, not just management or staff personnel. Specific reporting methods are discussed in subsequent chapters.

What TPM Is Not

What is equally important in our definition of TPM is what it does not contain. Notice that the definition does not mention “maintenance.” A greatly misunderstood aspect of TPM is that people believe it is only about maintenance because it has the “M” word in its title. TPM does affect the maintenance function greatly, but it also affects all other plant functions. TPM is a production-driven improvement methodology that is designed to optimize equipment reliability and ensure efficient management of plant assets. Japanese plants are initiating TPM activities in secretarial pools, administrative offices, and even product design departments, areas that are seldom visited by maintenance personnel. The TPM concept of reliability is expanding beyond equipment to serve the total needs of plants by addressing overall organizational reliability.

Perhaps something was lost in translating TPM from Japanese to English. In Japan “maintenance” implies “asset management,” not just “repairs.” TPM’s true meaning or essence might more accurately be captured under the title of “total productive reliability” or “total productive management.”

Is TPM Right for Your Plant?

TPM has gained considerable notoriety since its introduction to the North American market in the late 1980s. A national TPM society as well as an annual conference have been established. Numerous consulting organizations are offering implementation assistance, and hundreds of companies have started some type of TPM activity in their plants and facilities. Although some organizations have achieved remarkable success, progress at many others has stalled. Insufficient planning and lack of management commitment or understanding of the process have hampered many efforts. In other cases TPM concepts simply did not fit in with overall goals and objectives of the company. TPM is not for everyone, and some organizations are too quick to jump on the bandwagon.

Below are criteria to consider when selecting TPM as your improvement methodology.

Industry Type

TPM methodologies were developed in the automotive industry in Japan, mostly in the Toyota group companies. The concept lent itself nicely to discrete manufacturers with moderate capital assets and a large workforce. Such companies historically had poor records in maintaining their assets. Highly automated, continuous process plants are generally more capital intensive than discrete manufacturers. Due to their huge investments in equipment, they normally manage or maintain their facilities on a more sophisticated level. Despite this higher level of sophistication, TPM is still effective in the continuous process industry. Specific TPM activities and measures must be modified, though, to fit the prevalent concept in process industries of line or unit management as opposed to equipment management.² Although some methods are readily transferable, TPM has less applicability to the facility environment (universities, hospitals, etc.) than to production settings. Similarly, some modification of the TPM process and measurables are also required for the power-generation and utilities industries.

Company or Plant Culture

TPM is most fertile in a stable environment with forward-thinking management. Surprisingly, success or failure does not depend on whether the plant is union or nonunion, but on the level of trust and cooperation that exists between plant employees and management. Management commitment and workforce receptivity are critical to achieving success. Although TPM can be introduced to an organization by workers or first-line supervisors, support from the highest levels of management is required to drive major gains throughout the organization. Some companies resist TPM due to their automatic dislike of anything Japanese. Having taken their share of bumps and bruises from these tough competitors, they want nothing to do with this “Japanese improvement process.” Unfortunately, such companies are likely to continue their losing ways. TPM does not belong to any one country. In fact, many of the concepts of TPM have roots in North America. World class companies are innovative, but they also do not hesitate to copy practices and procedures from other leaders in industry.

Numerous companies have successfully built support for TPM-like efforts by simply changing vocabulary and personalizing procedures to fit their unique needs. The basic goals and activities remain the same. Improvement efforts organized around “world class maintenance,” “reliability centered maintenance,” and “continuous flow manufacturing” are similar to TPM and can be the driving force behind a formal improvement process.

Present Performance

TPM assumes that basic plant systems are already in place. If preventive maintenance, equipment work order systems, and equipment histories are not already functioning, they should be implemented prior to starting classical TPM activities.

Strategic Focus

TPM is a long-term strategic initiative, rather than a short-term tactical fix. It will fail if a “program of the month” mentality exists. If an organization has multiple strategies being implemented (e.g., TQM, JIT, ISO 9000, kaizen, continuous flow manufacturing, Theory of Constraints), resources will be stretched. Since most plants have difficulty addressing two major improvement strategies simultaneously, all other improvement activities should be positioned as subordinate and complementary phases of the major strategic plan. TPM has rightly earned consideration as a primary improvement methodology. Its activities fit well with many of the other current improvement philosophies. For example, TPM complements total quality management efforts, because both methods are fueled by employee involvement and empowerment. A Volvo plant in Belgium was one of the first non-Japanese plants to win the JIPM Award. It did so by merging TPM and TQM into one single improvement process.

What Else Is in This Book?

Chapter 2 notes the extent of TPM implementation in Japan, and describes the relationship of TPM with the Japan Institute of Plant Maintenance (JIPM). Awards and conferences that support and stimulate the improvement process in Japan are also discussed.

Chapters 3 and 4 discuss the TPM process in detail. Although Nakajima divides the classic twelve-step implementation process into four phases,³ this book simplifies the process into two stages, preparation and implementation. The “Kickoff of TPM” (normally step six) is treated as part of the preparatory stage, and phase four “stabilization” becomes part of implementation. Also discussed in these chapters is the potential for res...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Publisher’s Message
• Preface
• 1 Introduction
• 2 Success of TPM in Japan—JIPM
• 3 Preparatory Stage of TPM
• 4 Implementation Stage of TPM
• 5 The Seven Levels of Autonomous Maintenance
• 6 Unions and TPM
• 7 Measuring Overall Equipment Effectiveness
• 8 TPM and Theory of Constraints / Continuous Flow Manufacturing
• 9 TPM and Benchmarking
• 10 Successful TPM Companies
• Appendix: Typical TPM Master Plan
• About the Authors
• Index